On June 24, 2003 08:49 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> And If you're not really serious but just shoot architecture for the fun on
> it, get some wide angle lenses and use photoshop to correct the, I believe
> it's called, parallex problems. (merging verticals). Before photoshop,
> shift lenses mad
On June 23, 2003 10:18 pm, frank theriault wrote:
> Now that you mention it, I think you're right, Nick. I wonder if anyone
> had two or more cameras, so that one always had a camera when the "used"
> one was sent back for processing and re-loading.
>
> And, I wonder if you got back the same camer
On June 23, 2003 09:55 pm, frank theriault wrote:
> That's cool! I love trivia - in fact, my whole life is a collection of
> trivial, unimportant events (but I digress...).
>
> I suppose that around the turn of the last century, the only cameras
> available to the general public (other than big, b
On June 22, 2003 07:41 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
> I think i may have fiqured out what went wrong.I shot a roll of Provia 400
> F today,duplicating the same
> shots and conditions, and the results will prove me right or wrong.I wont
> say what i think happened,I
> dont have a flame suit nor
On June 19, 2003 11:18 am, Anthony Farr wrote:
> I'm not sure which market you mean isn't very big today. What I am sure of
People who have never owned a SLR and now want one. I guess some people will
consider the feature list when looking to get thier first SLR but some are
going to be
On June 19, 2003 05:12 pm, frank theriault wrote:
> Of course not! Simple photo-electric cells don't record images, do they?
But it's about producing an image not recording one. It's not a very
realistic image but it's an image. Now replace the single bulb and sensor
with a bunch of lit
On June 19, 2003 11:03 am, Rob Studdert wrote:
> On 19 Jun 2003 at 10:55, Nick Zentena wrote:
> > How does that make sense? Nothing is stopping you from using the
> > aperture ring other then losing in camera metering.
>
> Talk about feature laden.
>
Ha
On June 19, 2003 09:29 am, Anthony Farr wrote:
>
> Pentax don't plan to sell most *ists to present Pentax owners, but to
> people who've never before owned a 35mm SLR. That's what makes it 'entry
> level'. If you or I or anyone else on this list bought an *ist, that would
> not be an 'entry' purc
On June 19, 2003 10:51 am, Matt Bevers wrote:
> Exactly - that's why I said the user interface supports it's entry
> level status. The single dial doesn't work for people who don't use
> autoexposure.
How does that make sense? Nothing is stopping you from using the aperture
ring other t
On June 19, 2003 05:24 am, Bob Walkden wrote:
>
> Besides, 'darkrooms' are only dark for the brief moment while you load
> the film in the tank. Otherwise they are lit normally or by a
> safelight and the light of the enlarger.
Only if you're using a daylight tank for film and doing B&W
On June 19, 2003 07:39 am, frank theriault wrote:
> AND, that definition would include digital photography as well. The
> words "sensitized surface (as a film)" clearly mean "sensitized surface
> including but not limited to film". I think a digital sensor would fall
> into that category.
On June 18, 2003 06:52 pm, Lukasz Kacperczyk wrote:
> > It is a B/W photo competition, not an Adobe Photoshop skills one.
>
> So? Since when can't a digital b&w print be called b&w photograph?
I suggest looking at the secondary prizes.
Nick
On June 18, 2003 01:30 pm, Bruce Dayton wrote:
> Nick,
>
> I think that pretty much holds true even at MF. I have yet to hear a
> complaint about the 67 lens mount or the metering modes (or lack) that
> it has.
>
> Oh, the tangled web of the 35mm world...
I was more joking about the lack
On June 18, 2003 11:47 am, Bruce Dayton wrote:
> mike,
>
> Funny thing, once you move past 35mm into something bigger, then all
> this arguing about whose weeny little camera is better doesn't matter
> so much. All of the 35mm bodies have that same liability - small
> negative.
And once y
On June 17, 2003 08:07 pm, Caveman wrote:
> Good. Now I'll send you a free screwmount Zenit camera, but you have to
> use that one only for the rest of your life. No other gear allowed.
Any chance of making it a Flexaret?
Nick
On June 16, 2003 05:11 pm, frank theriault wrote:
> pooched - didn't even use a handheld, didn't even know about Sunny 16, just
> went by the exposure "instructions" on the inside of the film box! Came
> back with incredible photos of Egypt.
The stuff on the box is basically Sunny 16. It
On June 16, 2003 02:14 pm, Paul Eriksson wrote:
> Ok, please help someone ebay illiterate. What pros and cons are there with
> paypal?
I can only talk from the point of somebody that sends money.
Pros:
Fast payment so the seller ships the item fast. Hopefully.
N
On June 15, 2003 07:44 am, Keith Whaley wrote:
> Speaking of the right time to enter the market with a product, how about
> Kodak, and it's 27 exposure "one-time-use camera system [disposable]
> DIGITAL cameras?
> My Sunday paper came in a plastic wrapper/envelope, with the Kodak adv.
> on the outs
On June 14, 2003 11:40 pm, William Robb wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: Caveman
> Subject: Re: Velvia was Re: Exposure
>
> > Simple. Follow the ISO standardized method of determining the film ISO
> > rating.
>
> The ISO standardized method is the first thing that is abandoned by
> adv
On June 14, 2003 09:31 pm, Jostein wrote:
> Valentin,
> I think the diaphragm itself will continue to be made from little metal
> pieces for a pretty good while yet.
>
> Erratic electric contacts will of course cause errors. Unless you have some
> interesting definitions of "erratic", "electric", "
On June 14, 2003 12:23 pm, Caveman wrote:
> Had you attended your physics course, you would never make statements
> like "Any meter not faulty give 100% correct readout".
Depends on how you define faulty and correct.
Nick
On June 14, 2003 08:02 am, collinb wrote:
> Given how technology changes and how fabrication needs
> would seem to require some consistency ...
> I wonder how many of these were made all in one batch
> with the expectation that they'd be sold over time.
> Perhaps make 500 (in whole or parts awaitin
On June 13, 2003 03:54 pm, William Robb wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > A side question.What material would be best to help cover a window,or
>
> door frame for that
>
> > matter. I
> > have a piece of black foam board cut to fit my bathroom window but it
>
>
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
On June 11, 2003 08:03 am, Steve Desjardins wrote:
> Me too. The pertinent info is:
>
> FROM: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> TO: [No To Addresses]
> Subject: Your Amazon.com order (#103-5647566-7192624)
>
> Attachment Name: preussen.gif.exe
> No mention of Pentax for me.
Without full headers it doe
On June 9, 2003 06:13 pm, frank theriault wrote:
>
>
> But on the whole, I agree with Collin. Since for me photography is a
> hobby, and likely always will be, I'm completely happy shooting with 20
> year old bodies and lenses, since they serve my needs, and take damn good
> photos. I realize tha
On June 8, 2003 11:07 pm, Peter Alling wrote:
> It seemed just as silly then as it does now, and I'm a software engineer.
I wonder if they ever built the subdivision that was announced around 1999.
Nick
On June 9, 2003 09:38 am, Cotty wrote:
> > Worse it might not stop with death. You know the stories about people
> >who die
> >and nobody notices?
>
> Nick, I work with some of these people!
Do they still get paid?-)))
Nick
On June 9, 2003 10:08 am, Fred wrote:
> > So toasters and coffee makers hold conversations while I`m
> > sleeping?
>
> Yes - the caffeine keeps the coffee makers up all night, and so then
> they pester the toasters into staying awake...
It's because the toasters are so hot-)))
Ni
On June 9, 2003 01:46 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Our hobbies are our toys.
> But I do agree that many have disintegreated into things to set on the
> shelf rather than build and work with. And now they're all "consultants"
> to help you develop your hobby!
I disagree. You're just see
On June 9, 2003 04:23 pm, Pål Jensen wrote:
> the correct one. Neither have I with the LX. The thing is about
> consistency. Not what exactly is correct exposure. You may not want that
> precision. Thats fine by me.
Consistency not== accuracy. Make the same mistake 100 times in a row an
On June 8, 2003 10:40 pm, Caveman wrote:
> Nick Zentena wrote:
> > The common suggestion would be they would keep track of what was in the
> > fridge. Re-ordering from your internet supermarket.
>
> C'mon. So if I buy by mistake the wrong film and I keep it in the f
On June 8, 2003 10:19 pm, Peter Alling wrote:
> Since most 30 year old appliances fulfill their purposes more
> than adequately why would one want a networked refrigerator let
> alone a wireless one? On second thought I don't want to know.
The common suggestion would be they would keep t
Any body in BC [Victoria is the retail location] ever dealt with this store?
Any reason not to?
Thanks
Nick
On June 8, 2003 01:10 am, Caveman wrote:
> Well, I just did it, and now I have some hot potatoes on my hands. I.e.
> several rolls of 120 film chromes (noticed how quiet I was today?).
> Here's the question: what is supposed to be a decent price for having
> these processed (E-6) ?
Last I
On June 5, 2003 09:19 pm, Mark Roberts wrote:
>
> It was stacked *against* digital.
How can any test that gives one side that much of a monetary advantage be
stacked against the side with more money?
Nick
On June 5, 2003 10:30 pm, Caveman wrote:
> Nick Zentena wrote:
> > Has
> > Pentax ever made a lens with lower resolution then any current digital
> > sensor can handle? The worst Pentax lens ever made likely exceeds the
> > best current digital sensor.
>
> Don&#x
On June 5, 2003 11:04 pm, Rob Studdert wrote:
> On 5 Jun 2003 at 20:51, Nick Zentena wrote:
> > So it was stacked in favour of the digital. What's new?
>
> Read again.
>
> It was nicely highlighting the inadequacies of mainstream digital
> projection options.
On June 6, 2003 07:22 pm, Daniel Liu wrote:
>
>
> Also, interestingly enough, i've run into a zeiss 135mm m42 lens on
> ebay running for about $35 US, and even an Angenieux (are they still
> around?) 135mm m42 lens going for *faints* almost $700.
Is that a Zeiss Jena? You can find a real
On June 6, 2003 11:51 pm, Cameron Hood wrote:
> Vancouver is a city of 1.5 million people. And this is the only
> Pentax repair station west of Toronto, over 3,000 miles away. They plan
> on operating in Canada out of Toronto only. This can not be a good
> thing, and cannot be a sign of a heal
CityTV showed one of it's "Naked in the House" episodes this week. It's an
invitation only competition. The photographer gets 30 minutes with a naked
model and one roll of film. I've yet to see a Nikon or a Canon. I've seen
Pentax,Mamiya,Hasselblad, lots of Texas Leicas, something that
On June 5, 2003 05:48 pm, Harold Owen wrote:
>
> Pentax will have to release quality FAJ lenses for the *ist D rather
> than the 'economy' type lenses supplied for the *ist SLR.
>
Why would the *ist digital need better lenses then the *ist film? I'm
guessing they're filtering the lenses
On June 5, 2003 07:44 am, Herb Chong wrote:
> oops, i meant filtering and interpolating.
>
> Herb...
> - Original Message -
> From: "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 07:33
> Subject: Re: OT: 2 articles from the washington post
>
> > i
On June 5, 2003 01:11 pm, Artur Ledóchowski wrote:
>
> Nope, you're right. It's a stopped down aperture lens - I missed the word
> "open". OTOH, how can one use automatic diaphragm of an m42 lens on any
> K-mount body? I haven't heard of any adapter that allows such operation. Is
> there any? Rega
On June 5, 2003 07:08 pm, Daniel Liu wrote:
>
> Oh, the days of metal cameras with fake leather are over, aren't they?
> But i'm sure some brave soul will try painting theirs.
http://www.hartblei.com/products/cameras/trim-finish.htm
Now that's a company that believes in choice.
On June 4, 2003 09:20 am, Rob Studdert wrote:
> On 4 Jun 2003 at 7:06, Nick Zentena wrote:
> > How big is a pixel? How big is a grain? Isn't digital interpolated?
> > Won't it always be? Digital won't over come that.
>
> Well actually the Foveon conc
On June 4, 2003 12:19 pm, Artur Ledóchowski wrote:
>
> You know what I meant, I'm sure:)
> I need a camera which allows me to use AF lenses along with m42 ones and
> for example my Zenitar-K 16mm f/2,8 Fisheye. I'm waiting for the MZ-5n/3
> successor... Regards
>
But the MZ-5n doesn't met
On June 4, 2003 02:50 pm, Brendan wrote:
> Val, humm I want a loader cause I have 2 reels of
> 100/1000 kodak slide film, 36 ft each, and I want to
> shoot the stuff, and bulk buy provia to.
Photo-co in Quebec sells one model for a good price.
http://www.photo-co.com/securestore/
On June 4, 2003 07:11 am, Artur Ledóchowski wrote:
> Buying an external meter only to be able to work with the plain K-mount
> lenses in the M mode of the *ist makes no sense to me. The camera has a
> new, advanced, 16-segment matrix and it's IMHO better to get rid of such
> lenses and get the KA-
On June 3, 2003 11:53 pm, Rob Studdert wrote:
>
> A good image shouldn't look like a film or digital it should stand on it's
Why not? All the people doing alt processes must want the look.
> own, I would guess that was the original gist of the comment. Also the
> reference was to "flatne
On June 3, 2003 07:12 pm, Rob Studdert wrote:
> On 3 Jun 2003 at 16:28, Christian Skofteland wrote:
> > Film v digital: (tv, take note to what a Bethesda wedding photographer
> > has to say about digital's ability to hold detail in the highlights.
> >
> > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articl
On June 3, 2003 12:28 pm, Caveman wrote:
> Harold Owen wrote:
> > will test the camera tomorrow
>
> This is cruel.
>
> cheers,
> caveman
Shouldn't a cave man have a higher pain threshold-)))
Nick
On June 2, 2003 04:32 pm, Alan Chan wrote:
> >If he needs 10x magnification the only alternative would be bellows with a
> >special real macro lens (like Zeiss Luminars) are needed - outside his
> >budget, though. Maybe a microscope, too?
>
> But we don't know if she meant 10X on film, or just on t
On June 2, 2003 10:34 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Can anyone help this customer:
>
> <
> I have been on the internet for hours and I have no hair left!! I want to
> phoograph diamonds for a web site. They need to appear on the site abot 10
> times real size. I bought a 3+ filter but this was a w
On June 1, 2003 08:49 pm, frank theriault wrote:
> supplier to meet their needs somewhere. It's a real credibility problem
> when Sigma and Fuji, and other smaller manufacturers have had a dslr on the
> market for some time.
Fuji is small?
Nick
On June 1, 2003 10:27 am, Steve Desjardins wrote:
> Sci. Am had a special section on this a while back. (July 2000) My
> favorite arguemnt involves assuming that a tehcnoogocial species arises,
> sends one colony ship out at 0.1 c, it takes 400 years for that colonoy
> to send out another ship, e
On June 1, 2003 08:19 am, frank theriault wrote:
>
> First, one of the things that pisses me off about much sci fi that has to
> do with ET's is that aliens always bear such a striking resemblence to us!
Cheaper to slap green make up on your local out of work actor then to come up
with s
On June 1, 2003 08:14 am, Fred wrote:
>
> I'm not sure I'm so eager to have the universe populated with
> species such as ours (the most dangerous - and easily the most
> destructive - species on this planet we call "ours")...
Isn't that why it's "ours"? There is a quote in one of Niven'
On June 1, 2003 07:56 am, Keith Whaley wrote:
> I just did look it up. Thanks.
>
> http://www.activemind.com/Mysterious/Topics/SETI/drake_equation.html
>
> Redoing the existing formula's default parameters to some a bit less
> optimistic, I come up with 200 possible communicating life forms within
On May 31, 2003 11:59 pm, Butch Black wrote:
> Given the Star trek thread am I the only one with reservations that mankind
> will ever find another space faring species? If you think about it. If in
Somebody did a series of statiscal estimates on this years ago. Basically
turns out that q
Okay I missed the first message and the last time I used a Mac Reagan was in
office so take it easy on me.
http://www.xfree86.org/4.2.1/Darwin1.html#1
That doesn't work for you?
BTW my Mac with finder 0.9 [or was that 0.89] still likely works-)))
Nick
On May 29, 2003 09:25 am, Herb Chong wrote:
> yes it is the point. metal frames come from kits and cut pieces of some
> long length. i can make my own digital camera with a KAF2 mount too. being
> possible in theory doesn't make it possible in practice.
You're saying you can't cut the met
On May 29, 2003 08:26 am, Mark Stringer wrote:
> I've heard that relative to oil paintings but not photos...
I've heard it with RC prints. Not sure about fiber. How are prints stored in
museums? Not the ones on display but the ones in storage?
Nick
On May 29, 2003 08:43 am, Herb Chong wrote:
> would you be willing to pay for a frame sealed that way?
Not the point. It was mentioned metal couldn't be sealed. I'm also having
problems with wood being sealed easier then metal. Wood breathes. Contracts.
Expands. Even the most stable doe
On May 28, 2003 08:59 pm, Herb Chong wrote:
> metal frames can't be sealed as tightly as wood ones and so prints are last
> less long. ozone circulation fades inks and dyes. if you are selling for
> the fine art market, it matters.
>
They make submarines of metal so it must be possible to
On May 28, 2003 03:09 pm, Bob Walkden wrote:
> But, having suggested the Twin Mate (that name should be grist
> to the Caveman's mill), I looked into availability, and see that B&H
> have one in stock according to their website, so I may just buy one
> and forget about the L-398M. The price is not
On May 27, 2003 04:33 pm, Bob Walkden wrote:
> The main disadvantage is that you have to use a slide to cope with
> 'extremes' of light - ie, outdoors in daylight, or indoors or low
> light. The slides are easily lost, although I admit I've never lost
> one, and difficult to replace; at least, I h
On March 30, 2003 10:19 pm, Bruce Rubenstein wrote:
> Folks also need to title and catagorize their things right. Yesterday
> some one put EOS in the title and listed it Camera parts and
> accessories: it was a brand new, never used EOS 3 for $500 and no one
> even bid on it.
Stuffs only worth
On March 30, 2003 05:21 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Just when i thought it was safe to go into the water lol.Thanks
> Pat,interesting idea.
Ebay Item # 2919910899 went for nobid. $18. Will supposedly handle 3"x3"
[that's inches-)]
I think it's back on sale. Needs a new cord.
This one
On March 30, 2003 02:59 pm, Peter Alling wrote:
> They seem to be available in screw mount I'd go for that if I could find
> one.
Wouldn't surprise me if they are all really screw mount to start with.
Nick
On March 29, 2003 06:06 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Thanks David,Paul,Bruce,William for your replies.
>
> Everything seems pretty constent except for film,which is understandable,as
> its a personal preference.
> For those who shoot trannies,.mounted or unmounted. I have seen
> internet ad's
On March 29, 2003 10:00 am, Chris Brogden wrote:
> Asking this question on behalf of another list:
>
>
> Does anyone if there was any public exhibition of Victorian photography (as
> art) in England before 1900?
Don't know about England but stuff like this was being doing long before
1900
htt
On March 28, 2003 08:53 am, gfen wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, Nick Zentena wrote:
> > Building smaller cameras like 4x5 doesn't make sense to save money.
>
> I think it has less to do with money and more to do with the fact that you
> can design and build your own camera w
On March 28, 2003 09:03 am, collinb wrote:
> I'm going to chime in again with some thoughts.
>
> Lens coverage information
> http://www.graflex.org/lenses/lens-spec.html
>
> Resolution information
> http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html
>
> The particular lens can make a perception difference
On March 27, 2003 03:21 pm, Jostein wrote:
> Guys,
> If you really mean it about large format,
> build the camera yourself!
>
> It's a lot cheaper than buying, and will give you _hours_ of fun at
> the computer keyboard with your fingers glued together...:-)
For what he charges for the bo
On March 27, 2003 12:54 pm, Mishka wrote:
> jco,
> the subject states "35mm SUCKS!". i disagree.
> 4x5 is a *special purpose* tool, and as such it is wonderful. it's like
> saying that 50mm lens sucks since 1000mm allows for better quality of far
> away detail, or that honda civic sucks since any f
On March 26, 2003 09:46 pm, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
>
>
> Anyway, I suggest any of you yearning for better
> quality images give 4X5 a shot. The lenses and
> "bodies" ( monorails) arent very expensive used
> and give an incredible bang for the buck.
> I spent about $2500 for two cameras, ( a press a
On March 26, 2003 10:44 pm, William Robb wrote:
> Mostly, I agree.
> In print sizes up to 11x14 there is no significant quality difference
> between 6x7 and 4x5.
Well a 4x5 contact print can almost be big enough. A 5x7 is easily big enough
for some uses. I like 6x9 contact prints but 6x7
On March 25, 2003 05:08 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Any thoughts or comments before i possible waste some developing time.
> BTW it's rated it at 50 with just a standard uv filter for the test.
I forget but isn't that way too fast for Techpan?
Nick
On March 25, 2003 11:05 am, Roland Mabo wrote:
>
> Do you compare date models? The *ist comes with a data back as standard, it
> can't be bought without one. You must compare with date models from the
> competition.
>
How much is the date feature worth to people? If all it does is record
On March 25, 2003 10:59 am, Roland Mabo wrote:
> From: Bruce Rubenstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 10:50:51 -0500
> >
> >B&H has the camera listed for $300. That is only $20 less than the ZX-5n
> >and twice the price of the ZX-60. It is $60 more than the Canon Ti and $40
> >les
On March 24, 2003 01:21 pm, Chris Brogden wrote:
> As Bruce said, evaluative metering usually does a very good job overall,
> especially with print film. But if you enjoy taking the time to expose a
> subject precisely, you're doing fine. The MZ-5n's spotmeter (was that
> what you're using?) cove
On March 22, 2003 04:56 pm, Peter Jansen wrote:
>
> Well said Artur. Like I mentioned earlier, unless the
> latest and the greatest can improve your photography
> immensely, then???
Depending on what you're doing "latest and greatest" varies from a big yawn
to essential. For me it's all
On March 20, 2003 03:00 pm, Herb Chong wrote:
> you don't get the same field of view except with a horrendously expensive
> lens.
Which brings up the other issue. You can use whatever lens you'd like. I
checked the field of view using the formula on the webpage dealing with the
horizon
On March 20, 2003 08:44 am, E. van Ginkel wrote:
> Hi All
>
> Mayby a bit off topic. I'm considering a Horizon 202 camera. Does anyone
> here has any experience with one of these Russian panoramic cameras?
>
> A longtime Pentax User (over 22 years now)
Try this:
http://www.pauck.de/marco/photo/p
On March 18, 2003 07:51 pm, Steve Desjardins wrote:
> I got it. The problem was I was playing with an old m42 super tak set
> on manual and it stops down when on the camera or not. I'll try an M
> lens when I get home.
Which might mean a 50 year old manual M42 lens will work just fine.
On March 18, 2003 02:58 am, Roland Mabo wrote:
> From: Nick Zentena <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 17:12:55 -0500
> >
> > Great now define the market. Ask 100 people here and I bet >you'll get
> > 101 different answers. Maybe 201
On March 17, 2003 01:46 pm, Roland Mabo wrote:
>
> Pentax must supply what the market demands.
Great now define the market. Ask 100 people here and I bet you'll get 101
different answers. Maybe 201.
Nick
On March 17, 2003 11:17 am, Caveman wrote:
> Nick Zentena wrote:
> > Pentax needs something like the Mamiya 645e. People are buying into the
> > 645e who would never have looked at Mamiya higher priced models.
>
> I don't know what Pentax actually needs, and it's
On March 17, 2003 09:15 am, Roland Mabo wrote:
> "enthusiastic amateurs" as Pentax calls it.
> This is not a bad thing, but eventually - amateurs wants more than the el
> cheapo plastic le chique consumer zooms, they start to explore new areas of
> photography. They discover macrophotography and t
On March 16, 2003 04:56 pm, Jostein wrote:
> I don't forget, Bill. :-)
>
> When Joe takes a picture of Jane's family at the garden party and the
> old aunt on the left looks _alot_ stranger than in real life, the
Well you've got a 50% chance she will look better then real life-)))
Nick
On March 16, 2003 01:29 pm, Paul Stenquist wrote:
>
> Why would anyone collect a clone? Like the Bessa like cone, this is
> strictly a user, and probably not as good a user as a Spotmatic. I've
> purchased four Spotties on ebay in the last four years, and they're all
> very nice. Two have had CLAs
On March 16, 2003 08:18 am, frank theriault wrote:
> Hi, Nick,
>
> Well, if it's old and abandonned you're looking for, I fear that the old
> St. Clair Starion (I'm assuming you mean the North Station that I referred
Hi,
There is or was a station in the St. Clair/Calendona
On March 15, 2003 10:29 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Rode the train from Toronto to Niagara Falls this summer, and one of my
> memories was it going past the large old abandoned station at Hamilton.
> No idea how easy it is to get access.
Sounds perfect for a longer trip.
Thanks
Ni
On March 15, 2003 05:31 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Markhams old station is still there, on Hwy 48, north of Hwy 7.It was the
> old GO station too,but it has
> moved.If you go in the spring they trot out some old farm equipment and
> display it out front.My Sept
> PUG IR picture was shot there.
On March 15, 2003 05:04 pm, KT Takeshita wrote:
>
> Old village of Unionville north of Toronto, close to where we live has a
> couple of railroad stations.
> One is a restored station of yesteryear which I think is actually used as
> a commuter station, and another one nearby which is an abandon
On March 15, 2003 04:40 pm, frank theriault wrote:
> Hi, Nick,
>
> Union Station's pretty old .
>
Too nice-)) I was hoping someone would say the old St. Clair station was
still standing.
Nick
On March 16, 2003 07:52 am, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
> $400?
>
> That's way too much over the price of a near mint
> spotmatic IMHO.
IMHO it's both too expensive and too cheap at that price. Too expensive for
those looking for a cheap body to mount old lenses on. Too cheap for
collectors
On March 15, 2003 09:36 pm, frank theriault wrote:
> Nice!
>
> I hate to nit-pick (and I'm not usually a nit-picker ), but it would be
> nice if the ISO range went up to 3200, but it ain't a big deal...
>
> 60,000 yen, eh? Anyone know what that's likely to be in US (or better yet)
> Canadian dolla
On March 14, 2003 02:40 pm, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
> what new russian one?
I couldn't remember so I did a search. Seems Zenit is making various models
using the M42 mount. They even make one using a K mount. These aren't feature
rich. Shutter goes from 1/8 to 1/500. That's the highlight
1 - 100 of 153 matches
Mail list logo
