babart

babart

Lives in United States ME, United States
Works as a Pharmacist
Has a website at www.brucebartrug.com
Joined on Jun 23, 2008

Comments

Total: 96, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

For those put off by the price, you can have a mint Zeiss Distagon T ZF 35/2 for $700 on eBay. Manual focus is good for you :). Or a Sigma 35/1.4 art for $900 new almost anywhere and $700 used.

Sorry. But I'm retired and I'm tired of being priced out of the market.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 8, 2015 at 13:38 UTC as 7th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

John Summers: Looks good. I want to see how it fairs next to the
Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG HSM | A

Especially given the difference in prices. I understand Zeiss's well-deserved reputation, but I'm being priced out of the market. So I welcome Sigma's art series as offering high quality images for the rest of us who really can't afford to keep up.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 8, 2015 at 13:31 UTC
In reply to:

babart: Problem being that standard Manfrotto camera plate, which, when the camera body is moved to vertical position, allows the camera to rotate on the mount screw. Especially if it has a heavy-ish lens mounted. In this case, of course, "heavy-ish" might be misleading :).

Oh, I did. Long ago. Went to Arca-Swiss style clamps. I was referring to an old Manfrotto tripod head of similar configuration to the one discussed here, and that I could never sell so still have it.

Thanks for the suggestion though.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 6, 2015 at 22:48 UTC
In reply to:

babart: Problem being that standard Manfrotto camera plate, which, when the camera body is moved to vertical position, allows the camera to rotate on the mount screw. Especially if it has a heavy-ish lens mounted. In this case, of course, "heavy-ish" might be misleading :).

Thanks. Unfortunately it won't help my old Manfrotto tripod head that looks like this but isn't so snazzy. That unit has no plate, just a threaded screw :). I suppose I could drill and thread an arca plate onto the camera platform. This type of head is very useful for architectural work. Ballheads are too, but they're a bit more fidgety when setting the camera and lens level.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 6, 2015 at 01:52 UTC
In reply to:

babart: Problem being that standard Manfrotto camera plate, which, when the camera body is moved to vertical position, allows the camera to rotate on the mount screw. Especially if it has a heavy-ish lens mounted. In this case, of course, "heavy-ish" might be misleading :).

Sorry, but I don't see any locating pin on the camera mount plate............http://www.manfrotto.co.uk/product/24329.31708.1108718.0.0/MHXPRO-3WG/_/XPRO_Geared_3_Way_Head_with_Adapto_Body

Direct link | Posted on Mar 5, 2015 at 14:31 UTC

Problem being that standard Manfrotto camera plate, which, when the camera body is moved to vertical position, allows the camera to rotate on the mount screw. Especially if it has a heavy-ish lens mounted. In this case, of course, "heavy-ish" might be misleading :).

Direct link | Posted on Mar 5, 2015 at 13:01 UTC as 11th comment | 7 replies
In reply to:

DStudio: Looking at the samples, looks like a great 15mm lens!

Now, since it's going to be shot at 15mm most of the time, can anyone please remind me why we need the zoom?

That's true. My mistake. Actually I also have a zoom that starts at 24mm for FF, so I simply wasn't thinking. Duh.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 27, 2015 at 13:52 UTC
In reply to:

DStudio: Looking at the samples, looks like a great 15mm lens!

Now, since it's going to be shot at 15mm most of the time, can anyone please remind me why we need the zoom?

Good question, since most of us already have a 16 to something zoom. The Rokinon 14/2.8 FF is only $400.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 26, 2015 at 19:10 UTC

I think I'd buy the Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 for $400 and carry my 24-50/4 from back in the film days. All this expensive wide-aperture stuff is for......what? A travel zoom at 2pounds? A digital camera that won't go above ISO200? What? Soon all the new zooms will be f/1.4, cost $3000 and weight 8pounds. Scuse me, but I won't be in line to buy one.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 26, 2015 at 13:36 UTC as 1st comment

So why can't they make a f/4 model too, so everyone can afford one?

Direct link | Posted on Feb 26, 2015 at 13:28 UTC as 11th comment | 1 reply

Hmm. Looks like Ricoh has decided to keep Pentax in business. Glad to hear it!

Direct link | Posted on Feb 12, 2015 at 00:08 UTC as 2nd comment

Why did they not make an adapter to use all their other lenses with?

Direct link | Posted on Feb 11, 2015 at 13:50 UTC as 293rd comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

babart: Pentax should sell a lot of these, as it's well-featured for the price. The collapsible lens is a little late on the scene, but might be quite nice for travel.

BAB

Too true, I'm afraid.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 10, 2015 at 01:14 UTC

Pentax should sell a lot of these, as it's well-featured for the price. The collapsible lens is a little late on the scene, but might be quite nice for travel.

BAB

Direct link | Posted on Feb 9, 2015 at 22:25 UTC as 77th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

babart: Oh, good. Another camera I can't afford. Next......

Know what you mean. Especially with Lamborghinis.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 7, 2015 at 13:24 UTC

Oh, good. Another camera I can't afford. Next......

Direct link | Posted on Feb 6, 2015 at 14:13 UTC as 30th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

babart: Considering the $2500 price of the two new zooms, I'm ever so glad to have purchased a used a7 (one kilobuck) and an adapter ($50) for all my Pentax "full-frame" lenses from the film days, from 20 to 400mm. I'm set. Except for auto focus. (Have that on the APS-C K-5.) Beats waiting for another brick of an SLR that charts out at about 4 grand for one camera and one lens. I was hoping for a mirrorless from Pentax, and they missed their chance by not putting a full-frame sensor in that ugly little toy camera they produced a couple years ago. Those would have sold like hotcakes. However, I am happy to see that Pentax isn't going to fade away. They've made some excellent -- and practical -- cameras since the mid-twentieth century. Glad I save all that legacy glass.
BAB

@MacroBokeh: of course I know what flange distance is. I've been using Pentax equipment since before you were born, judging from your attitude. The K-01 would have been an excellent model to introduce a full-frame sensor. Would have sold for maybe $1000? Would have sold like hot-cakes, especially to people like myself who could mount our film lenses on it. And why would the mount have to change on a mirrorless? The lenses would have to change, but the mount could be the same, and Pentax could have sold an extender for older lenses that carried electronic connections both ways.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 5, 2015 at 19:47 UTC

Considering the $2500 price of the two new zooms, I'm ever so glad to have purchased a used a7 (one kilobuck) and an adapter ($50) for all my Pentax "full-frame" lenses from the film days, from 20 to 400mm. I'm set. Except for auto focus. (Have that on the APS-C K-5.) Beats waiting for another brick of an SLR that charts out at about 4 grand for one camera and one lens. I was hoping for a mirrorless from Pentax, and they missed their chance by not putting a full-frame sensor in that ugly little toy camera they produced a couple years ago. Those would have sold like hotcakes. However, I am happy to see that Pentax isn't going to fade away. They've made some excellent -- and practical -- cameras since the mid-twentieth century. Glad I save all that legacy glass.
BAB

Direct link | Posted on Feb 5, 2015 at 14:19 UTC as 52nd comment | 7 replies
On Adobe details OS support for next version of Lightroom article (229 comments in total)
In reply to:

SantaFeBill: "The announcement suggests Lightroom 6 will continue as a standalone application ... ."
Why? CC requires certain operating systems. The fact that LR 6 will also has no relevance as to whether it will be stand-alone or cloud-based. You still need an OS on your computer to access cloud-based applications.

@ rrr_hhh

That's why I don't "rent" CC photoshop. I stuck with CS6 and added LR as the "front end" for CS6. If LR goes CC I'll go Phase One.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 23, 2015 at 20:39 UTC
On Adobe details OS support for next version of Lightroom article (229 comments in total)
In reply to:

SantaFeBill: "The announcement suggests Lightroom 6 will continue as a standalone application ... ."
Why? CC requires certain operating systems. The fact that LR 6 will also has no relevance as to whether it will be stand-alone or cloud-based. You still need an OS on your computer to access cloud-based applications.

Because it's cheaper than "renting" Photoshop on an annual basis.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 23, 2015 at 00:15 UTC
Total: 96, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »