All Forum Comments
As far as I know those lenses with aperture rings will be fine, just unlock it from "A". I did read about a 28-90mm zoom suffering damage when used on a K1000 (the user reckoned the camera was a bit rough on the mostly-plastic lens) but I haven't read any other similar reports elsewhere.
Comment by Dangermouse posted on Modern lenses on old bodies! at 13/05/2011 - 23:57
Sadly I don't have any spare screw mount lenses, the stuff I'm planning to get rid of is all K mount. I'll probably list it all at the end of the month, as I have a week off (school half term) so will be able to get parcels to the post office in reasonable time.
Comment by Dangermouse posted on Another pointless thread at 13/05/2011 - 19:23
I think they'd be ok, aside from the fact that you won't be able to adjust the aperture (which will be stuck at the smallest setting). I know the DA 35/2.4 and 40/2.8 are full frame as I've tried one and seen images taken with the other.
The P30 would be able to operate the aperture, although you wouldn't have any readout of what aperture it had picked. A body with shutter priority mode would give you some form of control as changing the shutter speed would force the aperture to change, a bit clumsy but workable.
The P30 would be able to operate the aperture, although you wouldn't have any readout of what aperture it had picked. A body with shutter priority mode would give you some form of control as changing the shutter speed would force the aperture to change, a bit clumsy but workable.
Comment by Dangermouse posted on Modern lenses on old bodies! at 13/05/2011 - 18:56
Problem is, their training (and the gutter press) eventually convinces them that there are child-snatchers behind every bush. Never mind the fact that statistically a kid is more likely to be abused by a family member or friend of the family...
I note that the social services department is the only one to have job vacancies all the time at our local council, if this is the case nationwide then they'll be signing up anyone who can parrot the mantras and doesn't look like they're about to eat the clients!
On a more cheerful note I'm trying to work out whether I can afford a Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 next month. I've got a two month contract as an exam invigilator (boring, but good money) so I suspect the first month's pay may well go in that direction. Just want to get rid of a few unused lenses and 35mm bodies first to raise a bit more cash toward it, will probably offer them here then ask the shop about part-exing the stuff which doesn't sell.
I note that the social services department is the only one to have job vacancies all the time at our local council, if this is the case nationwide then they'll be signing up anyone who can parrot the mantras and doesn't look like they're about to eat the clients!
On a more cheerful note I'm trying to work out whether I can afford a Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 next month. I've got a two month contract as an exam invigilator (boring, but good money) so I suspect the first month's pay may well go in that direction. Just want to get rid of a few unused lenses and 35mm bodies first to raise a bit more cash toward it, will probably offer them here then ask the shop about part-exing the stuff which doesn't sell.
Comment by Dangermouse posted on Another pointless thread at 13/05/2011 - 18:10
gartmore wrote:
The Paps are outside on the street right now, I'm surprised they haven't come down our semi private access lane; one guy has a lens the size of a small dustbin!
I always think Pentax should put "It isn't the size, it's what you do with it" in their adverts! The Paps are outside on the street right now, I'm surprised they haven't come down our semi private access lane; one guy has a lens the size of a small dustbin!
Comment by Dangermouse posted on An unexpected touch of glamour at 13/05/2011 - 18:01
Well, I'm now in the same situation! Considering buying a Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 in a month or two when I get paid for the current contract, however I'm thinking I'll get rid of a few of my unused bodies and lenses to help fund it. Thing I can't decide is whether to sell them here or see what part exchange offer I get from Carmarthen Camera Centre.
List at the moment is an SF7 with the non-SMC 28-80mm f3.5-4.5, MZ50 with F 35-80mm f4-5.6, also the F 80-200mm f4.7-5.6 and 100-300mm f4.5-5.6 zooms and a Takumar Bayonet 28mm f2.8. Might also get shot of my FA 28-80mm f3.5-5.6 as I never use it.
Any ideas or suggestions? I'm guessing the bodies will be of very limited interest hereabouts as would the attached lenses. I don't feel remotely attached to the auto focus gear so if it'll raise £100 or so towards a new lens then that'd be great, but I've no idea of value. It all works and the optics are perfect aside from the usual dust.
List at the moment is an SF7 with the non-SMC 28-80mm f3.5-4.5, MZ50 with F 35-80mm f4-5.6, also the F 80-200mm f4.7-5.6 and 100-300mm f4.5-5.6 zooms and a Takumar Bayonet 28mm f2.8. Might also get shot of my FA 28-80mm f3.5-5.6 as I never use it.
Any ideas or suggestions? I'm guessing the bodies will be of very limited interest hereabouts as would the attached lenses. I don't feel remotely attached to the auto focus gear so if it'll raise £100 or so towards a new lens then that'd be great, but I've no idea of value. It all works and the optics are perfect aside from the usual dust.
Comment by Dangermouse posted on Pricing S/H gear at 13/05/2011 - 11:33
The BBC makes a fortune from selling content and their various publications, I think they might just be able to afford to pay a fair amount for these images and a bit more to compensate for their using them without permission...
Comment by Dangermouse posted on Copyright Infringement... again! at 12/05/2011 - 22:01
I think it's a case of some people not needing rules and others being in dire need of them!
I don't look in viewfinders and consciously think whether the composition meets the rules, I shoot what I think looks good and tend to find that what I consider my best goes down well with others.
Meanwhile you get Kev with his iphone blazing away at everything and getting the reaction of "nice colours..." from people with some artistic taste who're too polite to say it's terrible!
I don't look in viewfinders and consciously think whether the composition meets the rules, I shoot what I think looks good and tend to find that what I consider my best goes down well with others.
Meanwhile you get Kev with his iphone blazing away at everything and getting the reaction of "nice colours..." from people with some artistic taste who're too polite to say it's terrible!
Comment by Dangermouse posted on Advice would be appreciated at 12/05/2011 - 21:58
My advice: Don't buy Photoshop
The GIMP is just as easy to learn, just as powerful, and free!
The GIMP is just as easy to learn, just as powerful, and free!
Comment by Dangermouse posted on Advice would be appreciated at 12/05/2011 - 21:21
gartmore wrote:
Matt,
It all comes down to what a Sheriff (a judge in Scotland) would think reasonable. The BBC would pay a picture library £150 to £200 for the use of a single image in a UK only broadcast (take note those of you who willingly give your work to the BBC for free).
This image isn't a stock shot. It is unique and crucial to their story, I'll reveal the link when everything is done and dusted, so the ball is at my feet right now. Watch this space
Something I've often considered. By encouraging people to "text in your image" they're essentially charging people to send them something they'd usually have to pay for!Matt,
It all comes down to what a Sheriff (a judge in Scotland) would think reasonable. The BBC would pay a picture library £150 to £200 for the use of a single image in a UK only broadcast (take note those of you who willingly give your work to the BBC for free).
This image isn't a stock shot. It is unique and crucial to their story, I'll reveal the link when everything is done and dusted, so the ball is at my feet right now. Watch this space
I might well submit a few for their attempt to reboot the Domesday Project as the '80s shots of my town on their site are a bit rubbish (too dark, on the whole). I view that as my contribution to a history project though.
Comment by Dangermouse posted on Copyright Infringement... again! at 12/05/2011 - 19:45
