Dangermouse

Joined: 25th November 2009

All Forum Comments

Topics Created Topics Contributed Forum Comments Photo Comments

All Forum Comments

Dangermouse
If you want a ballhead, take a look at the Red Snapper one - £50 including a QR plate, takes Arca Swiss-style plates so you can buy different lengths to shift the centre of gravity of the camera/lens on the head.

All metal, very nice to use, handles my K-m with everything from the 35mm f2.4 to a Bigma. They also have excellent customer service skills and deliver very rapidly - even while other suppliers are in the "Holi-daze" between xmas and new year!

Comment by Dangermouse posted on trashing a shop? at 04/03/2011 - 15:52

Dangermouse
Shades of some photos I've taken on still days which could almost be hung either way up, as there was a perfect reflection of the landscape in the water in the foreground!

Comment by Dangermouse posted on I've got a 20 quid fisheye lens at 04/03/2011 - 14:34

Dangermouse
Anyone else notice that supermarkets put the price of veg oil up as the price of diesel rises?

I ran my Discovery on it briefly without any obvious harm, it wasn't keen on cold starting though and I won't be doing it again. Just wish there was a biodiesel supplier in town - the nearest here all seem to be so far out of the way that any price saving is wiped out by the extra fuel used to find them!

Comment by Dangermouse posted on Another pointless thread at 04/03/2011 - 12:07

Dangermouse
womble wrote:
There are plenty of optimists on ebay...
To be fair there are a couple of desirable items in there - isn't the Vivitar Series 1 zoom one of the sought-after ones? The 24-48mm will probably get a good price too as people seem mad for anything wider than 28mm, and the ME Super/50mm f1.7 combo is probably worth £30-£50 providing it works.

Comment by Dangermouse posted on God loves a tryer at 03/03/2011 - 13:15

Dangermouse
From my understanding of asbestos (gained from following a few threads about its removal from preserved railway stock):

As a solid it's relatively harmless providing you don't consume it. The danger comes when it breaks up into fibres which drift around (which is why removal crews wear a sealed suit).

Any exposure to the dust can cause cancer later on. I've heard a tale of someone who was in a contaminated room for less than a minute (before he realised what had happened and got out) and developed the associated cancer twenty or so years later. Two breaths, that's all it took.

I'd be inclined to wear a mask of some sort for urbexing as any protection is better than none at all, it will also protect you from getting a mouthful of dirt or dislodged rust if, say, looking up and attempting to open a hatch.

Comment by Dangermouse posted on Urban Exploration - Urbex at 03/03/2011 - 13:09

Dangermouse
Mechanically reliable, electronically I'm not so sure! The metering on mine is very idiosyncratic and easily fooled when compared to an MX. A pity, as it's lovely to handle and use aside from that.

Comment by Dangermouse posted on Criminal? at 02/03/2011 - 21:06

Dangermouse
I often think Pentax are missing a trick in not having minty examples of the original three K bodies on display along with their latest range. It'd make for a great demonstration of backwards compatibility when you unclip the 55mm f1.8 from the old KM and fit it to the new K5 without any adapters.

Comment by Dangermouse posted on Criminal? at 02/03/2011 - 18:20

Dangermouse
I'm waiting for someone to exhibit a Pentax SLR as a work of art in its own right. The Spotmatic would have had as much impact on photography as those arty LP covers did on music, and it's just utterly perfect to handle and use.

Comment by Dangermouse posted on Criminal? at 02/03/2011 - 15:54

Dangermouse
I've looked at the 18-35mm before now, only snag is the lack of an aperture ring.

I would be looking seriously at the Samyang 14mm if reviews were a little more unanimous, as that would be usable on everything from my 1970s KX to my K-m.

Comment by Dangermouse posted on Can anyone explain this? at 02/03/2011 - 00:01

Dangermouse
You can only really tell from experience. I now know what properly exposed Ilford HP5 looks like after developing, but I've shot about twelve rolls of the stuff. I developed a roll of 120 film today which doesn't look right, it's probably only a stop or so out and can easily be rescued after scanning.

B&W film really is dead easy to develop at home. You do need a dark space but TBH I reckon you'd get away with loading it into the tank in a darkened room, at night, with a quilt or thick blanket over you and the film. I know the cupboard I use isn't perfect but it's good enough for the minute or two it takes to load a standard dev tank, and once the film is loaded you can do the rest under normal lighting.

If you can get hold of an Agfa Rondinax tank you don't need any darkness as they load exactly like a camera. You will need a film leader retrieving gadget, or do as I do and use older cameras with manual film rewind then simply stop cranking when you hear the click of the film disengaging from the sprocket.

Comment by Dangermouse posted on My first ever go at film. at 01/03/2011 - 23:58

Proudly supporting Pentax User

Samsung Logo Asahi Pentax Logo