T Rittenhouse wrote:
> IIRC Pentax out sold (units) all other SLR makers in the
late 60's early
> 70's. Then the plastic cameras came out and Pentax was
late getting into
> that (cheap camera) market.
Surely the problem was more related to Pentax's extreme
tardiness in adopting a bayonet mount?
Cotty wrote:
>
> LOL. Now there's a Freudian slip!
>
> Now if I was a Pentax, what model would I be?
I don't know about you, but I could easily identify
with most Pentax models released since the LX ...
"Full of promise, but never quite delivered!"
;-)
John
Bill Owens wrote:
>
> I disagree about a "pro" model. Firstly Pentax is not
going to spend
> the money to give freebies and unlimited free service to
so called
> "pros". Secondly, it seems to me that Pentax is quite
happy in the
> advanced amateur/enthusiast market
Bill,
You're 100% right. Wh
Graywolf wrote:
>
>Should Pentax drop the price on the MZ-S because the Rebel
is cheaper?
No, they should drop the price anyway!
;-)
John
Anders Hultman wrote:
>
> One thing I've wondered for some time now, what does
"Limited" mean
> here? In what way are these lenses limited?
It means that they have "Limited Appeal".
(They certainly don't appeal to me!)
;-)
John
Graywolf wrote:
>
>
>The new Olympus E1 is aparently going to be a mid-line
> camera with no upgrade potential.
I don't know where you got that from, Tom.
The E1 will be one of several DSLRs in the Olympus range.
It is a "prosumer" camera and there will be at least one
model below it and one ab
My name is John and I am a cameraholic.
I shoot in the broad genre that is usually called "travel
photography" and use a Leica rangefinder outfit most of the
time. The 24mm, 35mm and 90mm focal lengths would be fine
for 90% of my shots but I resort to my Pentax SLR gear when
I need an SLR. As
Lon Williamson wrote:
>
>
> I own 2 SuperPrograms, 3 MXen, and 3 KXen. In the market
for
> more good KXen. No desire to own an LX.
Lon,
I had no particular desire to own an LX (I was happy with my
Super A) until I picked up a cheap Pentax outfit at a camera
fair. It included an LX body, an L
Steve Desjardins wrote:
>
> For me, $1000 is still too much for a low end camera. We
need the
> equivalent of the *ist body with a 6 MP senor in it for
about $600.
Steve,
All you need to do is wait a while. It will surely come.
Maybe by end of 2004?
John
Christian Skofteland wrote:
>
> Pål;
> Now I know why you don't think the ist-D is a nice looking
camera. You
> obviously have much different tastes than a lot of people
I know. The Leica
> R8 and R9 are two of the most beautifully designed SLRs.
The ist-D is an
> average looking "modern" SLR; th
Harold Owen wrote:
> It would appear that the Pentax *istD body only is going
to cost £1,400
> here in the UK.
>
> See this link:-
http://www.ephotozine.com/news/fullnews.cfm?NewsID=1327
The more it changes, the more it remains the same.
Long live "Rip-Off Britain".:-(
John
zoomshot wrote:
>
> See http://www.dpreview.com/
It's official from Pentax UK:
The *ist D will list at GBP 1400.00 (body only) or GBP
1529.99 with an 18-35mm f/4-5.6 FA-J lens.
Meanwhile, Canon lists the EOS 300D at GBP 899.00 (body
only) or GBP 999.00 with a very interesting zoom lens, and
wil
Feroze Kistan wrote:
>
> Could someone please explain why so many on the list have
MX's. It seems to
> be a very popular model, what gives?
It's fully manual, small, light, simple, robust, reliable,
has excellent handling and is cheap to buy and own.
I can't think of any other reasons right now
Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote:
>
> Well, I would say, that 200mm lens on APS-sized DSLR will
have the same DOF
> as the same piece of glass on 35mm camera. One condition -
the same camera
> to subject distance. At equal magnification, DSLR will
have greater DOF -
> just because you have to stand at long
Kevin Waterson wrote:
>
> whickersworld wrote:
>
> > In future years, when photographers reminisce about the
year
> > 2003, the EOS 300D is the only one of these two digital
SLRs
> > that anyone will remember. A truly remarkable coup, and
> > full marks to Canon f
T Rittenhouse wrote:
>
> WRONG!
No, what I wrote is RIGHT!
> Yes, the istD will take K and M mount lenses. The maintain
auto-aperture,
> but do not have meter coupling, so only work in full
manual mode. You do
> have to set a custom function to allow the shutter to
release with non-A
> lenses.
Amita Guha wrote:
>
> I would love to buy a Bessa T or R, because I tried them
out a while
> back and liked them a lot, but I've been looking around
for lenses and
> it looks like the lenses are several hundred $ each no
matter where I
> look. Am I missing something or will I really have to pay
ton
Amita Guha wrote:
>
> I would love to buy a Bessa T or R, because I tried them
out a while
> back and liked them a lot, but I've been looking around
for lenses and
> it looks like the lenses are several hundred $ each no
matter where I
> look. Am I missing something or will I really have to pay
ton
Cotty wrote:
>
> whickersworld wrote:
>
> >In future years, when photographers reminisce about the
year
> >2003, the EOS 300D is the only one of these two digital
SLRs
> >that anyone will remember. A truly remarkable coup, and
> >full marks to Canon for making th
Alan Chan wrote:
> I have never used the zooms you mentioned, but the issue
assoicated with the
> SMC-A 28-135/4 is weight.
Hi Alan,
Long ago I resolved that I would bear the weight of any lens
that helped me produce the results I wanted.
The SMC-A 28-135/4 did not last long in my outfit, bec
Cotty wrote:
>
> You're kidding. Now I see why folk
are upset.
Now Pentax users know *exactly* how Nikon users felt when
the F80 (N80) was introduced, with its deliberately designed
inability to meter with pre-autofocus Nikkors.
That wasn't the reason why I abandoned Nikon for Pentax, but
it wa
Chris Brogden wrote:
>
> So if the Nikon D100 will stop down an MF lens in manual
mode (no meter),
> then it's actually a step ahead of the *istD, which won't
even stop down
> an MF Pentax K-mount lens. That's sad.
Yes, it is sad. In each case, the necessary engineering
would have cost only a n
Alan Chan wrote:
> whickersworld wrote:
> >That wasn't the reason why I abandoned Nikon for Pentax,
but
> >it was probably *one* of the reasons. Now Pentax have
done
> >it, and Canon and Minolta did it a long time ago, I have
> >nowhere to go!
>
> You can
William Robb wrote:
>
> Nikon was doing this sort of thing long before the F80. I
don't recall which
> model, it may have been the N601 from the late 1980s which
would not work at
> all with non AI lenses, though they would mount with no
problem.
The F401 (N4004) had this problem, but I didn't (an
Boris Liberman wrote:
>
> Here's the correct URL:
> http://pug.komkon.org/01jul/IceFlwer.html
>
> Congratulations.
Seconded. Wonderful image. Well done Kenneth!
John
Cotty wrote:
> For UK buyers, the *ist D (body only) is available at
Cameraworld for £1199!
... and the Canon EOS 300D body is available for a mere
£708.00 at:
http://www.qed-uk.com/?i=&vp=6&bg=265&bp=300ds&bi=0&ird=1407
:-(
John
Rob Brigham wrote:
>
> Have you any experience with this company? I was thinking
about
> ordering a TV from them.
Hi Rob,
I've not had any personal dealings with them (yet) but know
two people who have purchased domestic electrical items and
have been very satisfied with price and delivery.
A
Graywolf wrote:
>
> I tend to disagree with you both. I find the narrower view
of something
> like a 100mm lens nice for picking out details. I readily
admit that
> landscape photography is not really my thing, but I think
there is more
> to it then sweeping panoramics.
Agree 100%.
I do a lot o
Jonas Larsson wrote:
>
> So I'm going to Leicester for a couple of weeks. Work and
not play
> unfortunately but a bit of spare time should be able to be
arranged.
> Anyone that has any hints for going places in this area or
in the town
> itself?
Hi Jonas,
Leicester is a multi-cultural British ci
David Mann wrote:
>
> Cesar Matamoros II wrote:
> > So, how far is sunny Brighton from London?
> > Accessible by train I gather?
>
> The timetables say its two hours by train for a direct
service (ie you
> don't have to get off and change trains halfway through).
Two hours, David?
The fastest tr
Peter Smekal wrote:
> Is anyone familar with the manual focus 18-28 mm f4-4.5
lens made by Samyang?
Hi Peter,
Based on optical bench and practical tests done by several
friends who were looking for an inexpensive wide-angle zoom
lens, it is probably one of the worst zoom lenses ever made.
It
Cotty wrote:
>
> Great Scott. John, I never knew that someone could write
so many things
> about Leceister, but I suppose that;s your job, eh ;-) The
only thing I
> could think of was cheese. (Why do I keep thinking of
Monty Python?)
Thanks Cotty,
You would not be the first person to tell me tha
Arnold Stark wrote:
>
> The K or A24/f2.8 as well as the A or FA20/f2.8 are not
free from
> distortion, either (which super-wide-angle lens is?)
Hi Arnold,
The 24mm f/2.8 Nikkors are effectively distortion-free.
John
- Original Message -
From: "Arnold Stark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2003 1:25 PM
Subject: Re: M-20/4 vs. K-24/2.8 ?
> whickersworld schrieb: > The 24mm f/2.8 Nikkors are
effectively
> distortion-free.
>
> &qu
Tetrazen wrote:
>
> It is pity that Pentax made a decision for ourselves. Even
I have mostly A,
> F and FA lenses, I still want to use my older (pre-A) ones
with a digital
> body. I believe they could be a good combination with
all-metal *ist D.
> From another perspective, Pentax do not offer long-
Roland Mabo wrote:
>
>Many here assumes that the *ist D is not going to be as
good as Nikon or
>Canons DSLR's. I wonder how people will react if it simply
outperforms the
>Nikon D100 and the Canon 10D in terms of image quality...
Hi Roland,
It will use the same Sony (?) CCD chip as the D100 (thi
Dr E D F Williams wrote:
>
> Contrast range is right. The Lumidisc allows you to
measure the incident
> light coming from each light you are using, main and
modelling, or whatever
> you'd like to call them, and work out the contrast range
from this
> information. Its also good for copying ... tells
- Original Message -
From: "Rob Brigham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 9:07 AM
Subject: RE: Opinions wanted: Sigma 24/2.8 super wide II
I would second this. I researched this lens because I was
seriously
considering it second hand. The build
Caveman wrote:
>
>Pål Jensen wrote:
>> A perfect exposure is what I define as a perfect
exposure.
>> I want that exposure within 1/3 of a stop so that I can
get
>> what I define as perfect exposure every time. .
Tadaa-badaa-da-daa. Twilight Zone. We're discussing a
Something that
we're not defini
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
>
>Weve been down this road before, unless your
aiming your camera at a full screen 18% reflectance
subject the meter will over or under expose
the subject. the only way you could be accurate
is if you manually compensated the meter reading
based on the KNOWN reflectance of t
Paul wrote:
>
> Get a lead bag. I travel to Europe on a regular basis with
a bag full of
> film. No problems. Just leave it in your carry-on luggage.
When it goes
> through the machine, security will recognize it as a lead
bag and
> they'll hand check it. They see them all the time. It's no
big dea
Paul Stenquist wrote:
>
> What I'm saying is leave the film in the lead bag and let
them run it
> through the machine. When they can't see through the lead,
they'll hand
> check it. Works every time for me. Four times at Heathrow
in the last
> two months.
Well done Paul. I wish we all had the s
Pål Jensen wrote:
>John said that the PH-273 could not hold a Hasselblad with
a 150mm lens. However, my PH-273QL with the 645NII and the
heavy 120/4 Macro is rock steady. My guess is that the
PH-273 offer less optimal coupling between head and body as
it doesn't have quick release plates, only cork
Glenn wrote:
> IIRC the _checked_baggage_ X-ray machines can vary the
intensity.
> (Not that this contradicts anything folks have said about
the
> carry-on X-rays, even if I'm right.) I didn't think the
carry-on
> scanners could be turned up.
Hi Glenn,
At the UK's busiest international airports
Roland Mabo wrote:
>
>Many says "Pentax are following Nikon" and seems to have
forgotten that
Nikon still supports mechanical aperture rings in their
higher end bodies. I
see no reason to why Pentax should remove full compatibility
in the semi-pro
and pro models when Nikon has showned no signs of d
Caveman wrote:
>
> Since you mentioned 35mm and US, Kodak is *the* obvious
choice.
>
> However, if you want to max the quality, you may want to
take a look at
> the Leitz Pradovit current series of projectors. Those
Leica lenses are
> really good.
Just to add to Caveman's good advice:
Avoid the
frank theriault wrote:
>
> My question is: Has anyone here heard of this happening
> (oil coating the inside of the glass)? Or does this sound
like a way to
> push me into some work that isn't as urgent as they make
it seem?
Hi Frank,
The technician is absolutely right. This is something you
Marnie wrote:
Marnie,
Thanks for posting these images.
This is excellent work. You've reached a standard in months
that I still aspire to after a mere three decades!
Some might argue this demonstrates the value of tuition. I
would argue that it demonstrates that you have a great
talent, a
Alan Chan wrote:
>
> The Minolta 5000dpi is around the corner...
Alan,
Please would you enlighten us a little more?
Thanks,
John
fastpat wrote:
> Robert, if you think the MZ-S is overpriced, compare it to
similarly-priced
> cameras in terms of build quality, as well as features.
The MZ-S does not compare at all favourably with the Canon
EOS 3 and Nikon F100. It is obviously better than the Canon
Rebel and Nikon F80 (N80 i
Jim Apilado wrote:
> Panasonic does make a digital camera, the LZ1, I think is
the model. It
> sports a Leica Elmarit zoom lens - 12X optical! It even
has image
> stabilization to assist using the 12X zoom. Now if only
Pentax came out
> with a camera like this.
Don't get your hopes up: It migh
Cotty wrote:
> You're not kidding. £579 is widespread,
> and I've seen a £549 somewhere.
Wow.
That's about half the list price. Let me see ...
£549 / 1.175 =£467.23
Written down over 4 years, less 22% tax = £364.44.
Now *that* is *great* value for money!
Cotty, can you remember w
Raimo Korhonen wrote:
>
> Not likely. It is an unique camera with useful specs.
> Nikon F 100 is not better, it is different.
So you don't find the following F100 features useful?
- Extremely fast and accurate AF with all AF Nikkors
- Even faster AF with AF-S Nikkors (similar to Canon USM)
- 3
Pål Jensen wrote:
>You seem to base this on the assumption that MZ-S contains
a shutter not optimized for durability. This is way off the
truth.
*Your* assumption is way off the truth, Pål.
Try sticking to facts, because you will have a greater
chance of getting things right.
John
Caveman wrote:
>
> It seems to me that a large number of people is not happy
with the
> current dictionary definition of the word "photography".
It appears that
> they would like it to include more than the traditional
prints obtained
> "on sensitized surfaces by the chemical action of
light".
>
Caveman wrote:
>
>Just marketing talk (that also inspired
>Paal with the "100% accurate metering" claim).
Exactly. I've learnt a lot from many people on here,
including Pål.
But what sets Pål apart from others here is that he seems
constantly
to confuse his opinions with fact. When Pål is repo
Cotty wrote:
>
>Also, in this week's AP there is:
>
>PENTAX MZS BODY mint £430,
>
>It was in last week as well so maybe long gone
Thanks again Cotty. I find AP classifieds a bit of a waste
of time as
the stuff is normally long before sold to subscribers, who
must get
their issue a day earl
Alan Chan wrote:
>
> You will never get the full story from consumer report
because it takes time
> to show the weakness of certain products. For instances,
some Sigma lenses
> scored well in test reports but degrade quickly
mechanically.
Alan,
I don't know anyone who has bought a Sigma lens tha
Rüdiger Neumann wrote:
>
>The FAJ lenses are very cheep in comparision to the former
cheapest lenses
>FAJ 28-8099 Euro (FA 28-80 179 Euro)
>FAJ 75-300...149 Euro (FA 80-200 239 Euro)
Hi Rüdiger,
I have heard that the FAJ lenses are of the same generic
Tamron design
that is sold cheaply u
Alan Chan wrote:
>
> I know this will make a lot of people "not happy", but the
latest Japan CAPA
> June magazine didn't compared the MZ-S to any F5/EOS1v/9
(1st group), or
> F100/EOS3/N1 (2nd group). And you know what? They compared
it to other mid
> end bodies F80/EOS7/7/NX (3rd group), yet still
Herb Chong wrote:
>
> mine has been OK optically. it is not as sharp as i would
like in the corners, but it is not bad.
Thanks Herb,
That seems to be the consensus among users of this lens.
"OK optically".
I remember reading at least two magazine reviews where it
appeared to be
a stellar perfor
Artur Ledóchowski wrote:
>
> What the hell?! All I said was the MZ-S is overpriced!
Nothing more!
Artur,
I agree.
Pentax UK appear to agree with you too; the best "street"
price
of the MZ-S is now almost exactly half the Pentax UK list
price.
It was overpriced at GBP 1099.99, but I will probab
Herb Chong wrote:
>
> i have to point out that my standard of comparison is the
FA* 80-200 f2.8.
Thanks Herb, understood.
John
David Chang-Sang wrote:
>
> Giving a pre production model to a Pentaxian vs giving a
pre production
> model to a Web or Magazine reviewer are two different
things.
David,
Exactly right! Pentaxians would not respond quite so
obediently if they
were told what to write, or even given the copy that
Joseph Tainter wrote:
> I am shifting my color negative shooting from ISO 400 to
ISO 100. I am
> looking for a film with good color saturation, low
contrast, and fine
> grain. Recommendations?
>
> BTW, there seems to be little point in trying Portra
160VC. It has the
> same grain as Portra 400 UC.
Bruce Rubenstein wrote:
>
> Not with the LX, you still have to change screens
> through the lens mount throat.
Uh Oh. Bad news. :-(
>(With the Nikon F cameras, after the finder is
>removed then the screen can be lifted out. No
>need to play dentist.)
Same with the F2, F3 and F4. I somet
Peter Alling wrote:
>
> Not on the LX unfortunatly.
Thanks.
(FX: sound of quiet sobbing ...)
Pål Jensen wrote:
>
>So somebody has finally figured out that the *ist is
perhaps the best buy in entry level sector.
Pål,
The TIPA award has nothing to do with
which is the best camera to buy. It has
all to do with which camera is likely to
be the most profitable to **SELL**.
The same comment
Pål Jensen wrote:
>
>This was not about dissing Leica but about
>the concept of a digital back for an old
>camera model.
The R9 is a *brand new* model, unless of
course one of your many talents is time
travel.
>I would not, though, spend about 55 post
>on it on the Leica list.
Neither would I
Marnie aka Doe wrote:
>
>Any camera designed from the ground up
>to be digital will be a much bettter
>digital camera than a film camera with a
>digital back.
Hi Marnie,
It is quite clear that the Leica R8 and R9
were designed from the ground up to be
BOTH film AND digital cameras. This b
Henk Terhell wrote:
>
> it's now close to 4 months since I have ordered an eye-cup
and one of the
> rubber strips for the contacts protection on the bottom
plate of my MZ-S.
> Both are easily lost by sliding in and out a camera bag.
No response from
> Pentax NL received. Fortunately I can use the
Alin Flaider wrote:
>
>Very likely the camera won't keep up with the digital
back.
>Supposing the number of megapixel increases, so it
should the
>processing power in the camera itself to deal with the
increased
>and faster output of the digital back.
I doubt very much that there
Bruce Rubenstein wrote:
>
> Canon & Nikon provide Professional Service
> plans for free for qualifying (i.e. pro)
> photographers. It doesn't help amateurs.
Bruce,
The Nikon Professional Service in the UK
is a joke. I cannot speak about any other
country, but here NPS is almost a byword
f
Dr E D F Williams wrote:
> Is it true that Superia Reala is the sharpest, most
contrasty and saturated
> film
> compared to other 35 mm colour negative material? Is there
a sharper, more
> contrasty and more saturated film available in 35 mm?
Don,
I apologise for not answering your question,
bu
mishka wrote:
>
> you want it sealed against element , have interchangeable
finders,
> interchangeable screens and have easy access to insides?
Of course! My Nikon F3 and F4 both did, so why so you
suggest it is not reasonable to expect that of the Pentax?
In fact, the LX does well in all resp
Marnie aka Doe wrote:
>
> Yes, that's quite different. And agreed.
Thanks!
John
Graywolf wrote:
>
> The problem with interchangeable backs on 35mm cameras is
not patents, but
> technology. It is simply that digital sensors have not
been on the surface
> of the chip but buried behind a protective surface and
then maybe an
> antialiasing filter over that.
>
> What does that mean
Alan Chan wrote:
>
> I have always thought Pentax lenses have not-so-high
contrast and
> not-so-vivid colour in general. At least that is the case
when compared to
> Nikkors, or Pentax 67 lenses against Mamiya 7 lenses.
Hi Alan,
No doubt someone will correct me if I
am wrong, but I have always a
frank theriault wrote:
>
> I guess Mark Cassino's an amateur?
I guess he is one of the very, very few
exceptions that prove the rule!
;-)
Pål Jensen wrote:
>
>John wrote:
>>
>>This so-called "enormous cost" is an illusion put
>>about by people who think they cannot afford
>>Leica.
>
>
>Illusion? The back alone cost $4500 at a time
>when similarly specced digital solution will
>likely cost $1000 or less.
Pål,
Quoting a projected pr
mishka wrote:
>
> don't know about f4, but f3 is not sealed, afaik.
> there's a good reason why lx has a lens between the screen
anf the
> finder. i suspect it's a lot more difficult
> to make interchangeable screens f3-style, that would also
keep the
> camera sealed.
Mishka,
The F4 has better s
Jan van Wijk wrote:
>
> After more than two years lusting for the MZ-S, and all
the time thinking
> "yes I like it, but no I do not need it", I finally bit
the bullet and got one.
>
> If I would wait any longer they might get extinct :-)
>
> Just got it today, so I have only been playing and
studyi
Cotty wrote:
>
> Philippe, I admire your use of caps to reinforce a command
line, but if
> you really want to unsubscribe, you could try creating a
Photoshop
> document of a white background, size about 20 metres by
about 350m metres
> at 12,600 ppi and use the type tool to fill it with the
word
>
Bruce Rubenstein wrote:
>
> The Nikkor is also supposed to have some vignetting issues
wide open.
Bruce,
All versions of the Nikkor AF 80-200mm
f/2.8 have severe light fall-off. At worst
it is about 1.7 stops but it never falls below
0.7 stops. It's otherwise a fine lens, but
such high figures
Marnie aka Doe wrote:
>
> I was really intrigued by these comments. I wonder if you
(or someone) could
> clarify that. What IS the Pentax "look?" Meaning the
result -- the pictures.
> And I don't mean flare or lack of it, and/or specifically
bokeh, because bokeh
> discussion is another thread and
- Original Message -
From: "Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 4:03 AM
Subject: Goods things to see/do in Alicante and Gibraltar
> Hi,
>
> Just wondering if any one has any must see's or do's for
traveling to =
> Alicante and Gibraltar?
Paul
frank theriault wrote:
>
> Happy Birthday, Canada!
>
>
Seconded (from the UK!),
John
Cotty wrote:
>
>This from DPReview on the UK pricing of the E-1 DSLR from
Olympus:
>
>"Olympus UK has today confirmed that the body only list
price of the E-
1 digital SLR (including 17.5% VAT) will be £1699.99. This
means that
at least initially the E-1 will be approximately £200 more
than a
Dario Bonazza wrote:
>
> Even the 645N II housings are magnesium-like plastic, with
the same look of
> the MZ-S, so why the *ist D should be magnesium? Only for
fighting against
> the EOS 10D? If it's magnesium, do you really believe that
Pentax could miss
> to point out that in their press release
Heiko Hamann wrote:
>
> No, there are no different layers of material but one
composite material
> (as far a I have understood that).
My Super As appear to have a plastic top plate/prism cover
that has been vacuum plated then painted black.
John
Pål Jensen wrote:
>John wrote:
>>No doubt Paal will tell me I'm wrong again.
>
>REPLY:
>Why should I say that? I've said the same
>thing since I forst heard about the 4/3 system.
>The Olympus makes more sense than the *ist D
>(or D10 for that matter) to me.
>The way I see it is that the Olympus off
William Robb wrote:
>
>What a hilarious pile of crap.
William,
It might appear hilarious, but he's right.
Annoying, isn't it!
;-)
John
jerome wrote:
>
> As for J-Lo, the truth is, beauty-wise you can find a
dozen of her per square
> mile of Brooklyn / Bronx terrain. She just happens to be
the one that "made it".
Can anyone please recommend a good, cheap, safe hotel within
strolling distance of Brooklyn/Bronx??
John
Bob S wrote:
>
> J-lo is a media phenomena.
> I didn't pay any attention to her until a couple of
years ago.
> She appeared as a presenter on the Oscar Awards ceremony
on TV.
> Her dress was cut down to her navel and she used double
sided
> sticky tape to make sure it stayed covering her
Lon Williamson wrote:
>
> A few of you have mentioned recently that you
> belong to or once belonged to camera clubs.
>
> What's it like?
Hi Lon,
What a camera club is like depends entirely
on the wishes of the existing - and previous -
members. I have learnt far more from a
few hours of for
Paul Ewins wrote:
>
> 1. The *ist-D is the digital equivalent of the MX.
> The Australian Distributor of Pentax
(http://www.crkennedy.com.au ) lists
> four major features of the *ist-D, and one of them is
"The world's
> smallest, lightest body" which was one of the major
features of the MX & ME.
Cotty wrote:
>
> > Is "shite" pronounced with a
> > long or short "i"?
>
> Long 'I', as in flying a 'kite'. British slang.
Actually, its derivation is *Irish*, although
it has now been "accepted" into English
so-called "culture".
;-)
Andre Langevin wrote:
>
> About the MX shutter, a repairman once told me that while
it gained
> in precision over the Spotmatic shutter (and, I guess, the
following
> KM and KX, which must have shared the same shutter
technology), it
> lost its precision faster, so needed more frequent
adjustment.
Paul Stenquist wrote:
>
> Thanks John. Yeah, I think a flash would have gotten her
attention:-).
That's not always a bad thing; you could even turn a very
good candid shot into an excellent "candid portrait" ...
(did I really type that?!).
> I never use a flash with the Leica. Just doesn't seem
Joseph Tainter wrote:
>
> It's very simple. Everything in photography is a
trade-off. Everything:
> film format (size), film type, camera bodies, lenses,
whether or not to
> carry a tripod, what one spends, etc. Provided that we
have some
> experience with gear or film, we each make our own
decisio
1 - 100 of 136 matches
Mail list logo
