Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Posts for: Chris T
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 912 next>>
Jan 17, 2020 11:48:31   #
tjw47 wrote:
Yes another era. I think my mom was born in 1920!


That's about when both my parents were born, too ... think my Mum hit the pavement in 1924.

Back then, hand-held SLR-like cameras, were just beginning to appear, but it'd be another 25-30 years before that exact design broke through. And then, another 40 before AE and AF started to appear.

And look at us now!!!! ... Cameras, these days - do everything, but, put on the coffee!!!
Go to
Jan 16, 2020 23:23:16   #
tjw47 wrote:
I guess for the same reason today, take the average person - give them a smartphone and a fully manual camera and ask them which one they prefer to use.
The Pentax ME Super takes great pictures, but it is not "point and shoot".
My Mom also had shaky hands - pictures came out blurry no mater which camera she used!


Oh, I see ... another era, huh?

Pentax has brought out some fine DSLRs, through the years, and the ME Super was a prime example.

But, you're right, TJW - we are firmly now in the age of AF, AE and built-in stabilization (in many models.)

The old workhorses (Nikon F, and Canon F1 - amongst them) are now, pretty much - old relics!!!!
Go to
Jan 16, 2020 00:51:49   #
tjw47 wrote:
It was my mom's camera - she did not like it. She used her Instamatic. Only shot one roll. Sat in a drawer. She died 12 years ago. I just put in a box as I went digital 20 years ago except used my Graflex XL until about 10 years ago.
I was suprised when I turned it on and the led light meter lit up!


Did she tell you WHY she did not like her Pentax ME Super, TJW?
Go to
Jan 15, 2020 10:19:35   #
rehess wrote:
Actually it says
1. This camera doesn't use many electrons for running meter
2. Whom ever the battery manufacturer was, they did a good job.


My Zenit E doesn't use a battery at all ... it has a solar sensor in the prism, for doing light readings.

Its only Savings Grace, RE - is that it uses the old Pentax Screw mount ...
Go to
Jan 15, 2020 09:28:36   #
rehess wrote:
Yes, he used a very good battery if it would last that long without leaking or having any other trouble.


I'd say!!!!

Says a lot for the Pentax brand, huh, RE?
Go to
Jan 14, 2020 23:56:20   #
tjw47 wrote:
The ME Super was made between 1979 & 1984 so it is at least 36 years Old.

The pictures are of the camera and the 28-85 MM Vivitar Zoom lens


Three dozen years old, TJW ... and it's still running on the exact same battery, that came with it???

That's QUITE a FEAT!!!!

Go to
Jan 14, 2020 16:17:54   #
Bill P wrote:
I am unaware of any formula one races in NA today. Attempts have been made, but the average American thinks car races are like NASCAR, which to me is like rush hour on the freeway.

Bu then again, I don't like songs about how my woman left me and took my pickup truck and my dog ran off.


Bill - here's a link to the page which lists all Formula One events over the coming year ->

https://www.racefans.net/2020-f1-season/2020-f1-calendar/

Note one omission - the Indy 500 - which is normally run on, or about - Memorial Day.

Also, note - one NA inclusion - the US Grand Prix - to be run on Oct. 23rd to 25th - at Circuit of the Americas ...
Go to
Jan 14, 2020 12:13:54   #
tjw47 wrote:
Have a Pentax K-1 MK II with 15-30, 24-70 & 70-200 mm All F2.8.

Also have a Pentax ME SUPER with a non Pentax telephoto lens.

It was used for 1 roll of pictures. My mother liked her Instamatic better.

The Led exposure meter still works! Same battery as the camera came with.


That's amazing, TJW ...

Original battery, eh? ... How old is that ME Super, now?
Go to
Jan 13, 2020 00:15:12   #
rehess wrote:
Actually, the K-S2 replaced the K-50, and was in turn replaced by the K-70, even though the K-50 was still in the catelog when the K-S2 was released. The K-S1 was a strange beast with strange LED lights and no Weather-Resistance aimed at casual shooters. It is hard to find a real Oentaxian who misses it.


Actually, you know, it's funny, RE ... but I often regret not having picked up a K-S1 when I could have.

The K-S2 - with all those different colored bottom plates - didn't have quite the same appeal.

Technically, the K-S series WAS a new line, which didn't quite work out.

The K-70 - although, far superior to the K-30 and K-50 - retains the smaller shape and size - of the K-S2.
Go to
Jan 11, 2020 16:53:23   #
Camara john wrote:
Used Pentax for years. spot-matic, k1000,Me,Mx, D100, K110; They handle different than my Nikon D300, I like them But they feel so light.


John ... I bought my Pentax K-50, because when I first picked it up, it felt a lot heavier than my Canon T3. It seemed to have a certain heft - that I found reassuring, and much more comfortable than ALL my Nikons. It IS heavier - as it has a steel sub-frame, whereas all the others are made from composite materials ....
Go to
Dec 3, 2019 03:14:44   #
Abo wrote:
Chris, curiosity compelled me to have a look at a US site for rise and run dimensions.
Where you are, they say the rise/run combination should only be 20 inches.

The rise and run on my back steps is only 17 inches, but having said that, my toes
always extend over the back of the step when going up them and I'm
only 5' 9"... hence I placed "no slip" on the very trailing edge of each step
after I recently painted that area with the "pale eucalypt" colour you see in my photo.

That part of the building was added (a "sun room") by the very short Maltese
family that owned the property before me... I guess that explains the smallish dimension of
17 inches.
Chris, curiosity compelled me to have a look at a ... (show quote)


By that logic, Alan - then the steps of the houses for the pygmies in New Guinea - should be just 10" !!!!

I think that you should go with whatever combination makes you the most comfortable. As already stated - the old steps had too much rise, and I tripped, coming up them, more times than I care to count. After I asked the stonemason to re-do them, using a lower rise, their first design - was STILL too high, and I told them - so, they had to redo it, once again. In order to avoid a TOTAL rebuild, they compromised on the front-to-back depth, I think - as now, rather than trip, I tend to stub my toes, more. But, that's alright. They used a facing on the front of each step, which tends to make that depth even less. But, I think it's a total of 2" and along with the actual 1" LAYER of each step - you have a 3" total rise - which is quite a bit easier for me to handle, than the old steps, were. As we get older, we tend to not be able to raise our feet as high, as we move forward. A combination effect, brought about by many factors - age, diabetes, etc.

It cost quite a bit, to have them do that - but the expense was well worth it - not only are they easier to handle, and prettier to look at - but the old steps had weathered thru time, and there were enormous cracks and holes large enough to admit critters - so, it was done for practical aspects, as well. Bought the house in 1973 - so that's 47 years, I've been here, now. In 45 years, the weather did a number on them.
Also, had them do some work on the garage facing, and the sides of the front steps area, simultaneously.
They also created a wall at the top of the steps, above the ramp, to prevent the land in the back from crumbling down onto the pathway leading to the back door and porch. That was quite an eyesore, too!!!

Thanks for your comments, Alan ... and that clever sketch, you did - explains a lot!!!!

Go to
Dec 3, 2019 02:49:17   #
Abo wrote:
I like the pot with feet :-)

I dont know if the dimensions of your steps are right or not. Just so long
as the rise of one step plus the "depth" of the next step
equals 22 inches is ergonomically good.

The diagram in my previous post explains the dimensions.

Warm regards,

Alan.


I have TWO of those, Alan ... the other one's at the top of the ramp. I also put those running boards on the car, for him, too - you can see in the second picture - looking down. Yes, we tend to do a lot for our pets - don't we? ... You did a smack-up job on that ramp for your cat, along with a "doggie door" - that's so neat!!! ... But those steps look pretty steep. Maybe, it might be an idea, to take a feather from my cap - eh? ... I'm not sure whether my new step design conforms to your 22" total, or not - or, even 20" ... don't really think it does. The rise is good for me, but the breadth - front-to-back, seems compromised.
Go to
Dec 2, 2019 19:38:28   #
Abo wrote:
22 inches, like this Chris:


This is a shot, taken at the same time, Abo - I neglected to put up, before ... it shows the ramp, more ...

Steps, and ramp to the left - for dog use ...

Go to
Dec 2, 2019 14:59:46   #
Abo wrote:
22 inches, like this Chris:


Abo - are you saying I had the steps re-done improperly?

You mean - they should have been broader - front-to-back?

When they first made the model, it was still too steep - so, I had them re-do it ...

I think you may well be right - I tend to stub my toes, now, instead of tripping on them, like before.

I suspect it WAS 13" and they wanted to make it 8" ... I wound up with a 3" rise ...
Go to
Dec 2, 2019 14:54:04   #
SuperflyTNT wrote:
If you're viewing from a proper distance it's possible, just as possible as for your Sonys.


Have no Micro cameras (just a dozen bridges) - the rest are all APS-C, Fly ... good enough for me.

When I want to do a mural, I go to my 4x5 ... plus, I still have my Pentax 6x7 (eye-level MF film.)

Thought about a FF, once or twice, but I think the expense, along with the extra weight - makes it out for me

I do pretty well with the Sony SLTs I have (a77, a77 II, a58) ... all capable of mural-sized prints ...
Go to
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 912 next>>
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.