kai_griffin

</i></i></i></i></em></em></em></em>

 

Any better?

But it's still italic. It's not HTML that's archaic - it's this whole friggin circa 1998 system Photo.net is built on. Go to any other forum in the universe and it's streets ahead. Why flog a dead horse, Phil?

That's be because the <i> tag is the archaic way of expressing italics. </em> The new way is <em> . And this should no longer be in italics.

Looks to me like they ought to rename this forum "Moonbase Alpha".

Suomenlinna (reached by small ferry from the main harbour) is a fortress island / old shipbuilding yard with "older atmosphere".<p>

 

Here is some info: <a href="http://www.suomenlinna.fi/index.php?menuid=3&lang=eng">Suomenlinna info</a><p>

 

On your spare Saturday, from many possibilities, I'd suggest considering a short trip to Porvoo, a little to the east of Helsinki.<p>Here is some info: <a href="http://demo.emedia.fi/index.php?cid=porvoonmatkailu&mid=353">Porvoo Website</a><p><br>Cheers<br>Kai

Zorkis and FED's are perfectly useable cameras (if not suffering from some defect), so just because the camera works doesn't mean it's "expensive". A fully functional excellent-condition Zorki-1 might be worth at most up to $70 to $80, though you can certainly get good working models in uglier condition for a lot less. You asked about serial numbers - yes these are freely available on the net, for example at www.cameraquest.com. In fact, there are dozens of resources on the web which fully explain how to identify a fake Leica, including previous posts to this forum. Again, www.cameraquest.com has a page that discusses fake Leicas, too.

Sorry - by "flange" I meant "cam" :-)

It's an obvious fake, and you needn't even bother looking at the details: Leica simply never produced a camera with such engravings on it - it's a concoction arising from the minds of modern Ukrainian or Russian forgers working with FED's and Zorkis. Thousands of these have been cranked out in recent years, typically with that same all-brass look (something else that Leica never did). If you're still in doubt, some further research will reveal to you the other tell-tale signs, such as the rangefinder flange.

Craig, there are *lots* of undiscovered temple sites (or at least, foundations of them). At the time those photos were taken, my wife was participating as a "helping hand" with a group of Australian archeologists who were conducting a variety of research projects & digs, etc. A few of them were involved with analysing aerial and satellite imagery of the region north of Siem Reap, towards the Lao border. While we were there, they identified two enormous previously unknown temple complexes hidden beneath the jungle & earth. Slight variations in topography & vegetation in the images revealed the same telltale squares layouts found at Angkor itself. Since then, I believe others have been identified by the same technique, and they've already begun to investigate some of them in person (tough going, as these sites are mostly quite remote). The Khmers were certainly obsessive builders!

That sounds pretty dubious, Denis - I wonder if the person who wrote the thread you saw 2 years ago knew what they were doing? Its inconceivable to me that the 4990 could beat the Nikon 9000 with any kind of margin, let alone a "big" one.

Sorry about that --- something went haywire with my links above, so here they are again:

<p>

<a href="http://www.griffinbyteworks.com/photography/cambodia">My Cambodia gallery</a>

<p>

<a href="http://www.canbypublications.com/siemreap/temples/temp-bengmelea.htm">Beng Melea Info</a>

Craig, I have a few shots of one of those villages on Tonle Sap; they are not terrific because I only had a Nikon CoolPix 950 with me on that trip. I don't recall the name of the village off hand, but it was right next to a very high hill which is the well-known site of a particularly old Khmer temple. It is interesting to do the boat trip through the floating village - some amazing sights. I have only a few shots of that area online on the page linked to below, they begin with the b&w shot of men wearing hats on a boat, and end with what appears to be an arial view, but is in fact taken from the aforementioned hill.

<p>

<a href>http://www.griffinbyteworks.com/photography/cambodia/</a>

<p>

As for other interesting places, yes, Bantei Srei mentioned above by James is worthwhile. I would also suggest, a bit further afield, Beng Melea, which is about 60kms from Siem Reap (takes over an hour by motorscooter driver each way). It is very overgrown, and exploring this complex involves clambering over giant blocks and great tree trunks and jumping down walls, etc. It is unlike any other temple complex in this respect (even Ta Promh, which has been left intentionally somewhat overgrown, but is really fairly well "groomed" for the visitor), and for that reason offers a very eerie feeling. Moody lighting for photography, too: I suggest afternoon. I have only two shot taken there online at the link above (a b&w shot of a boy in the ruins, and another of monks hauling wood by oxcart past a landmine warning), but I found this website for you on Beng Melea with lots of info:<p>

<a href>http://www.canbypublications.com/siemreap/temples/temp-bengmelea.htm</a>

<p>

Have a great trip!<br>

Kai

Stephen, the /16 is simply part of the slightly convoluted model numbering system Zeiss used. /16's were all 6x6's, /2's were all 6x9's, models with no suffix at all were typically 6x4.5's. The /24's were 35mm cameras. I guess it all made sense to somebody at the time.

You have got to be kidding. Of course this is a scam! It's precisely the same wedding photographer scam that's been going around for years. String this guy along for your own entertainment if you want, but considering he already knows your real name, roughly where you live, etc, the best advice would be to immediately cease communications. Playing with these scam artists can be fun, but best done from behind the cloak of a pseudonymn for obvious reasons (refer www.419eaters.com).

Good information there, Xavier - thanks!<br>

<br>

Cheers,<br>

Kai

Hi Arian,<br>

It's not as sharp as any L lens with similar zoom range (70-200 or 100-400, for example), but the sharpness is relatively easily recovered in post-production. Important to remember that no web-based gallery is going to give you the whole story, because greatly reduced-sized images can appear tack-sharp even if they are not really so sharp to begin with.<br>

<br>

And of course it's slower than most L lenses in this general zoom range. If you buy the 70-300 IS/DO, you buy it first and foremost because you want the compactness, coupled with reasonably good, if not superb, image quality. If A-1 quality straight out-of-the-camera is your prime need, then this may not be the lens for you.<br>

Cheers,<br>

Kai

Arian,<br>

Several of the pictures in the following pages of mine are taken with the 70-300 IS/DO. You'll have to pick through them to work out which ones; the little camera icon under each full-sized image pops up the EXIF data; and those marked "70-300" are taken with this lens. I use the lens a lot - far more than the small sprinking of photos that I put online might indicate!<br>

<br>

<a href>http://www.griffinbyteworks.com/photography/sauris/</a><br>

<a href>http://www.griffinbyteworks.com/photography/sarawak/</a><br>

<a href>http://www.griffinbyteworks.com/photography/weeklyphotograph2006/</a><br>

<br>

Cheers,<br>

Kai

Absolutely - the Super Program A is a great & reliable camera. By the way, a service manual for this camera, should you ever need one, can be found at : <a HREF="http://www.robertstech.com/pentax.htm">http://www.robertstech.com/pentax.htm</a>

Sorry, again:<div></div>

Last night in Maniago (Italy):

Ciao Vincenzo,

There is nothing wrong with buying yesterday's technology. My D60 is also about 4 years old, and the newer models offer nothing more to me than better high-ISO performance - the other added features in later models are meaningless to me and my photography. I'm certainly not "dreaming" of upgrading from the D60 - I see no reason to until it dies. Other cameras I regularly use range in age from 52 years to 20 years, and all function perfectly and take terrific pictures. In other words, "old" technology can be just as good as new, and if you can save money on the camera body, then you can spend more on quality lenses, which is by far the more important component of the system.<br>

Distinti saluti, Kai <br>(lots of pictures taken with D60 at <a href="http://www.griffinbyteworks.com">www.griffinbyteworks.com</a>)

I've bought quite a few 2nd hand items from KEH, shipped to Italy, and been taxed 20% "IVA" (equivalent of your VAT) every time. As much as I'd like to get away without having to pay it (who wouldn't?), the reliable quality of the gear from KEH and their superior service makes it worth it to me. I'm guessing that UK customs are if anything even more efficient at ensuring that tax is collected on incoming merchandise than they are here!

I really think the first people to ask this question of would be your service provider, not us diverse folks on Photo.Net! Anyway, from the sound of it, the "Basic Lite" plan that you signed up to has a cap on the amount of traffic you're allowed at the basic rate, but any additional traffic over that cap is charged at a higher rate. It's not so much that you're using "too much" bandwidth than you're using more than the plan's cap allows for. They no doubt have a higher level plan in which you get unlimited bandwidth at a flat rate of $40 or $50. Obviously, it's important to read the details about the plan you sign up for and understand the implications of exceeding its limits.<p> Other ISP companies, no doubt fed up with users complaining about suddenly huge bills, simply throttle customer's bitrate down to a crawl after they've exceeded an allowed monthly amount, but don't charge any extra. Both techniques are common on the lowest-cost plans offered by ISPs. But do ask your ISP directly, as we're all from different countries here, with many different kinds of service.

Yes, I vote the FX-3 as well. It goes on and on and on. Had one for 25 years now (circa 1981) and the only thing that's needed replacing on it has been the light seals (CLA at the same time)... and I gave it a new leather coat a couple of years ago.

<i>"if your space constraint is constrained"</i>, I wrote. OTOH, if your space constraint is <i>un</i>constrained, that would be worth a whole separate discussion, perhaps over in the philosophy forum! I think I had to switch off a boiling kettle half-way through writing that sentence :-)