That's a rare find these days. A woman who can't cook isn't really a woman at all.
On 5/28/07, Fernando <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks, she's a great cook too, I'm a lucky guy ;-) > > On 5/27/07, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > HAR! Great shot. Pretty lady too, btw:-). > > Paul > > On May 27, 2007, at 12:29 PM, Fernando wrote: > > > > > Hi Alex, > > > > > > Sorry to hear you had such a bad experience with the DA40, I'm on the > > > opposite side, I love that lens, I didn't think about selling that > > > lens even having way too many lenses covering that FL: DA18-55, > > > DA16-45, FA24-90, FA35, FA50/1.4 and A50/1.7 (yes, I'm a gearhead but > > > at least I'm no longer proud of it...), not only I like the size > > > factor (main reason for this lens) but also I like it's rendering > > > qualities and I've never experienced any focus problem. > > > In the end there is always a subjective factor involved in keeping a > > > lens, and that's why it's only you who can decide what works better > > > for you, right? > > > > > > Anyway I would buy that da40 from you if I wouldn't have one > > > already ;-). > > > > > > The way things are shapping up, I'm pretty sure you'll end up buying > > > that 43 and hopefully you'll find the so called 3D effect (comming > > > from a guy that has an order for a 31Ltd on Henry's). > > > > > > This is one of the photos that I like from the DA40, that's my wife > > > expressing her feelings about my excitement on the K10D purchase ;-) > > > > > > http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne? > > > id=369460334&context=set-72157594500202302&size=o > > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 5/27/07, AlexG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> Hi Boris, thanks for taking the time to respond. (same for Godfrey, > > >> Rob and Bob ;) ) > > >> > > >> I know the equipment doesn't make the man, believe me. I'm not a > > >> better athlete because my bike is nice, I don't lift more because the > > >> bar is nicely chrome-plated... etc > > >> > > >> What bothers me about the 40 is that it's so variable. It will > > >> give me > > >> a super-nice pic once and again, other times the pics will be > > >> slightly > > >> off. Some sligt misfocus (this is with AF, never happens on the 50), > > >> or slightly strange contrast, slightly faded colors. I think it's > > >> more > > >> aperture dependent than anything else, it has to be because my > > >> technique doesn't change shot to shot. > > >> > > >> In my opinion, the 50 can do no wrong, and it rules for marginal > > >> lighing. But the 43's pics have a perceptibly different quality to > > >> them. I just can't tell if it's Photoshop (there are a gazillion > > >> varibles if so) or the lens itself. I suspect it was much the same in > > >> the film day. An old photography book I have says you could really > > >> change the picture in the darkroom if you knew what you were doing. > > >> > > >> The whole two eye open thing, I haven't been able to do it with the > > >> digitals yet, neither with the 40 or the 50. The only camera that has > > >> allowed comfortable two-eye shooting was the Minolta SRT-201. I don't > > >> know what vf magnification it had, but it's a big ol' prism. The lens > > >> was a small 43mm which should be equal to a 28 on a DSLR. I will be > > >> playing with the kit lens in that range for a bit. > > >> > > >> The Engineering side of me really likes Rob's answer. There are > > >> simply > > >> too many variables to tell. And it satisfies the cheapskate side > > >> of me > > >> too.... > > >> > > >> I guess I'll be spending a bit more time with my existing gear before > > >> taking the plunge. It's the smartest thing to do. The 40 was the same > > >> kind of impulse buy this is shaping up to be and so far..... meh. > > >> > > >> Bob, where have the two of you gone for the honeymoon? > > >> > > >> Alex > > >> > > >> On 5/26/07, Boris Liberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> As for keeper's percentage. I am sorry, but I don't buy your > > >>> argument. > > >>> More expensive and theoretically better lens does not make one > > >>> better > > >>> photographer, no offense intended here. > > >>> > > >>> I do admit that if I was *forced* to choose just one normal lens, > > >>> I'd go > > >>> for 43 ltd, but that's my *personal* preference. > > >>> > > >>> Notice also, that you may be able to shoot with your FA 50/1.4 with > > >>> *both* eyes opened, which probably will not be possible with 43 > > >>> ltd... > > >>> You seem to like optical experiments ;-), so perhaps it is time you > > >>> performed some more. > > >>> > > >>> Boris > > >>> > > >>> -- > > >>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > >>> [email protected] > > >>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Wanna get in shape? > > >> Set a goal, snap a pic of youself, and join the PDML Traineo group! > > >> > > >> http://pdml.groups.traineo.com/ > > >> > > >> "Because only Nikonians should be fatsos!" > > >> > > >> -- > > >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > >> [email protected] > > >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > >> > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > http://www.flickr.com/photos/ferand/ > > > > > > -- > > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > > [email protected] > > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > > > > -- > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > [email protected] > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > > > -- > > http://www.flickr.com/photos/ferand/ > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- Wanna get in shape? Set a goal, snap a pic of youself, and join the PDML Traineo group! http://pdml.groups.traineo.com/ "Because only Nikonians should be fatsos!" -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
