Jump to content

phyliss_crowe

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    308

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by phyliss_crowe

    Vivitar 70-210 Macro not fitting Mark Roberts' description

    in Pentax

    Posted

    <p>If the serial number on the front of your 70-210 f/4.5 Vivitar begins with the numbers 77, and it has a large baffle on the mount end so that it won't mount on your DSLR, you have a 1990s Kobori-made Vivitar, and you'll have to do some minor but not at all scary surgery to get it to fit a DSLR. Hinman, who posted about his on the "SOLD" thread you found at pentaxforums, has a nice visual tutorial for how to do it both on his blog and on pentaxforum.</p>

    <p>I'm well pleased with mine. The bokeh is delicious, and I especially like that it's smaller in diameter than previous versions as I have small hands so for me, it's much easier to handhold for shots that would demand a tripod from the larger earlier versions, including the Series 1.</p>

    <p>If you still want a Series 1 70-210, get the f2.8 flavor. It's the best of the 3 versions that Vivitar offered. But be prepared to tussle a little for it if you go after a copy on eBay. It won't be financially out of reach for most, but it is highly sought after.</p>

    <p>Good luck!</p>

    <p>p.s. Actually, Hin's tutorial is in that same thread. Just click on the number 1 at the bottom right of a thread page to go back to page 1 of that thread, and you'll see how he did it. Really easy and well worth the effort!</p>

    The Last Kodachrome

    in The Wet Darkroom: Film, Paper & Chemistry

    Posted

    <p>Charles: You're very welcome. It would be awesome if someone were to pickup where Dwayne's is leaving off, just as a niche market for those who still have some Kodachrome on hand and no plans to use it before Dwayne's deadline. Like that 3D camera thingy. There's one place left - in the US - that still develops that film.</p>

    <p>JDM: There are a number of valid, IMHO, reasons <strong>I</strong> posted this story.</p>

    <p>Lex's story is AUDIO. My link goes to a story in the Wichita Eagle; that's a KANSAS newspaper based in Wichita, KANSAS. KANSAS - where's Dwayne's lives. KANSAS - where McCurry recently visited. KANSAS, specifically Parsons, Kansas, which McCurry had the grace and style to honor by photograhing it using the Last Kodachrome roll that will ever be manufactured.</p>

    <p>It is not intended to dilute Lex's story; rather, IMHO once again, it's my attempt to flesh out, per se, what Lex posted because it includes a slide show that highlights the <strong>inside</strong> of DWAYNE's lab - which is an equal focus of the story and what will soon be a "mythical" place, a place of magic to many people.</p>

    <p>On a personal note, Kansas is "home" to me. Born and raised there; both sides of my family originally settled in SE Kansas and still live and die there today.</p>

    <p>Ya know, JDM, I've always known you to be caustic. But I've also always stopped short of labeling you "callous". Thanks for parting the fog. I don't have to wonder anymore.</p>

    <p>And don't forget - blessed release from the tedium, real or perceived? It's only a mouse click away.</p>

    <p>You have an adventurous day now, heah?</p>

    Vivitar 28mm 2.5 Won't fit on some of my cameras....

    in Pentax

    Posted

    <p>If the flange is the issue, you can check out Hin Man's thread below for explicit photo and text instructions to remove and modify it to get it work for you. I have the same Kobori (SN 77xxx) Viv 70-210mm shown at this link and fixed it following Hin's instructions; took about 15 minutes. Fits and functions perfectly now on my K100D and my son's K20D.</p>

    <p><a href="http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/19602-dremel-tool-set-recommended-lens-modification.html">http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/19602-dremel-tool-set-recommended-lens-modification.html</a></p>

     

    Pentax K1000

    in Pentax

    Posted

    <p>The Lenmar RX-7 28mm is a third party lens, which can raise folks' hackles, but it's a nice lens. Produces great colors and I found it to be very sharp throughout its range. including on my K100D. A steal at the $15.00 I paid for it.</p>

    <p>Yes, using older manual lenses can be challenging, but well worth it considering the number of stellar copies on the used market, often for a song. A great, inexpensive way to learn your shooting style and what lens(es) suit you best, and many of them hold their value well so you wouldn't have much trouble getting your money back for those lenses that don't work for you. I've got 11 lenses now, and only 2 are strictly digital (no aperature ring so you can't use them on most film cameras).</p>

    <p>Here's a good tutorial on how to do stopped down metering with older manual lenses on Pentax DSLRs.</p>

    <p><a href="http://www.robertsdonovan.com/?p=1181">http://www.robertsdonovan.com/?p=1181</a></p>

    <p>Personally, I think it's utterly awesome that Pentax DSLRs will accept every lens ever made for Pentax cameras, including the M42 screw mount flavor. You can buy as many as you want to play with and still not break the bank!</p>

    <p>Happy shooting!</p>

    What do you guys think about the *ist D as starter ?

    in Pentax

    Posted

    <p>John Shriver said to avoid any DSLR with a pentamirror, like the K100D, if you have any hope of using manual lenses.</p>

    <p>I politely beg to differ. </p>

    <p>I have the K100D I inherited from my son when he upgraded to the K20D. In my stable are half a dozen Komine and Kiron Vivitars (still lusting for a Series 1), Pentax M 135, Pentax M 35-70, Pentax K 55mm f/2, Pentax K 50 f/1.4, Quantaray 70-300, a Vivitar 2x teleconverter - all manual lenses. While I don't consider myself anywhere near a "photograher", I think I can at least qualify as a "serious amateur" and am rather proud of my DSLR/manual lens combo results. </p>

    <p><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/lacyt/show/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/lacyt/show/</a></p>

    <p>The first 5 photos in my stream (red rose through cat portrait - uploaded tonight) were taken with the Viv 70-150 and NO post processing of any kind. Pinky swear! Just converted from RAW to JPG and uploaded to flickr. Stopped down metering on a DSLR is soo-weet!</p>

    <p>I do own both the 18-55 and 55-200 Pentax digital kit lenses. Neither hardly ever leaves my bag. Thinking of replacing them as well as the Quantaray (hate that lens!) with the Pentax 55-300 digital ONLY because I need the longer reach, and all older manual lenses of that focal length would give me tendonitis trying to use them for high school football and air shows and such! 'pods and bleachers and parents do not gel so much.</p>

    Bizarre digital photo - how did this happen?

    in Mirrorless Digital Cameras

    Posted

    <p>OMG, Tom. You are so full of yourself.<br>

    WILLIAM SAID:<br>

    I am not a camera person at all<br>

    My wife has done -something- to it. I need to <strong>poke it</strong> to get it to work again.<br>

    I can't seem to find the same anomaly anywhere else.<br>

    The other pictures taken that day look completely normal from what I can see.<br>

    The rest of your questions sound like this to me: blah blah blah blah blah.<br>

    I have no idea how to set an exposure or what EXIF data are either.<br>

    …if anything on the camera is set at a strange mode, it is completely accidental.<br>

    I know virtually nothing about cameras.<br>

    My limited knowledge is on how to make a picture smaller or bigger (adjusting how big the file gets) and how to take macro shots.<br>

    __________________<br>

    YOU declare that I “offered zero explanation of why he should do this.” (i.e., buy a new camera).<br>

    I asked him what model the camera is.<br>

    He said: Samsung Digimax 301, 3.2 Mega Pixel, Focal Length 5.1mm Samsung Lens.<br>

    My explanation for "buy a new camera". -- It’s OLD – 2004 - and I said that even though he hadn’t said how it’s been treated the past 6 ½ years, I DID say “end of life” at the very least.<br>

    You longwindedly conclude “scratched lens”.<br>

    FINALLY, William reveals that the camera has –<br>

    several scratches all over the lens<br>

    oily fingerprint streaks<br>

    tiny hair or scratch inside the lens<br>

    it's a field camera for pictures on the go<br>

    been dropped<br>

    crushed<br>

    stepped on<br>

    fallen from the roof of his car as he drove off.<br>

    DUH.<br>

    He really should’ve posted all that in the first place.<br>

    QUESTION: If it were merely a scratched lens that caused this one hinky photo, why didn’t it show up in ALL the photos from that day?<br>

    No, that was not an “I told you so” post. It was a Point of Fact moment – the camera is an OLD Point & Shoot and <strong>worn out</strong>. And I’m very surprised no one else thought to ask William from the get-go what I did.<br>

    No slam on you, William. Really. Just wanted to let Tom know I don’t walk away from uncalled-for insults.<br>

    Letting it go now.</p>

    Bizarre digital photo - how did this happen?

    in Mirrorless Digital Cameras

    Posted

    <p>Wow. That's....old. Like 2004. </p>

    <p>Well, I don't know how much use it's seen prior to this incident, how it's been stored, etc., same for the card, but knowing its age now, that camera and maybe the card, too, if you were using one, have long since reached end of life and are failing IMHO.</p>

    <p>Treat yourself to a brand new sparkly clean camera and card.</p>

    Bizarre digital photo - how did this happen?

    in Mirrorless Digital Cameras

    Posted

    <p>You stated "no fancy (camera) settings" were chosen so I feel safe in assuming you went with all Auto/defaults, yes? If so, it would appear that your camera has a bad sensor, especially if all your Biden visit shots were taken with exactly the same settings as all of them are washed out, overexposed, and I've looked at them across 3 separate brands of monitors and computers with the same results. </p>

    <p>From the Wikipedia thingy ....</p>

    <p>"<a title="Digital camera" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_camera">Digital camera</a> sensors are inherently sensitive to infrared light<sup id="cite_ref-11" ><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_photography#cite_note-11">[12]</a></sup>, which would interfere with the normal photography by confusing the autofocus calculations or softening the image (because infrared light is focused differently than visible light), or oversaturating the red channel. <strong>Also, some clothing is transparent in the infrared,"</strong><br>

    <strong><br /></strong></p>

    FINALLY --- done with it!

    in Wedding & Event

    Posted

    <p>If you hover over the fluctuating equalizer in the bottom right corner, you'll get the complete control panel for the music.</p>

    <p>And if you could legally use her music, my choice would be KD Lang. That woman's voice is liquid gold. Gives me SUCH goosebumps...</p>

    better colors than digital

    in The Wet Darkroom: Film, Paper & Chemistry

    Posted

    <p>Yes. Digital color seems colder to me, whether I use digital lenses or stopped down metering on older manual lenses. Comparative to digital music vs. solid state, like you get from an old Marantz or whatever of the same era stereo. Nothing I can't fix with software, but still, I don't want to have to. I want to be successful with it <strong>in camera.</strong><br /><br />However, right now I am having better luck with digital than Ektar. I really, really want to like Ektar, but I keep coming out with cyan/turquoise skies! Might be my camera - an AE-1 Program I've been shooting on Program until I get the hang of all the settings on it. And even though it was NOS when I bought it last year, it could probably still stand to be calibrated. I do have an ME Super that has recently been professionally CLA'd, though I have yet to run a roll of Ektar through it so I guess I'll try it in that one next. <br /><br />Overexpose, underexpose, expose right on. My head hurts....</p>

    Need advice for prime lens for pentax me super film camera

    in Pentax

    Posted

    <p>Nobody's mentioned it so I guess I will.</p>

    <p>I adore my 55mm f/2 K-mount, and I don't really know why I prefer it over my 50mm f/1.4 K-mount. There's just something different about it besides the fact that's is uber sharp, even in low light. Trouble is it's hard to find the f/2 version because if memory serves, it was the kit lens for the K2 body, was available only with the camera, and produced from 1976 to 1977. And that's how I got mine.</p>

    <p>A more readily available choice is the Super Multicoated (SMC) 55mm f/1.8 Takumar. (Nobody doesn't like SMC Taks.) They're all over eBay for nice prices, and it's a really sweet lens, too. I think they came in the M42 screw mount only, but as has been said, you can use it just fine on your ME Super and your digital Pentax body, if you have or get one, via an M42 to K mount adapter ring. A very Big Plus. </p>

    <p>I received a 55 1.8 Takumar by mistake a while back when I won the 50 1.4 on eBay, but I sent it back because I already have the 55 f/2. But that 1.8 version was really tempting. It's a petite lens and would work really well with your smaller M series Pentax. Just be sure if you go with the infamous Takumars that you get the Super Multicoated (SMC) flavor. Otherwise, the glass has a tendency to turn yellow, and you'll have bake it out by leaving it in the sun for awhile. </p>

    <p>If you're open to third party lenses, there's a gorgeous Vivitar Series 1 55 f/1.2 K-mount running on eBay right now. Don't know how good it is because there's little to no info about that one anywhere, but the Series 1 Vivs are still widely respected.</p>

    <p>There are several websites you can visit for a look at what to expect from whatever lens(es) you settle on, like flickr, pixel-peeper.com, photosig.com, etc.</p>

×
×
  • Create New...