Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Showing results 1 to 25 of 107 Search:
Forum: Lens Clubs 06-30-2015, 10:31 AM  
DA* Club
Posted By techmulla
Replies: 4,843
Views: 645,221
did you use flash to take this?
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 11-05-2014, 01:57 AM  
DA* 55 won't focus
Posted By techmulla
Replies: 7
Views: 748
unfortunately, it is not. maybe i should count the days to SDM failure then?
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 11-04-2014, 10:12 AM  
DA* 55 won't focus
Posted By techmulla
Replies: 7
Views: 748
did all of this, but didn't work .. went through plenty SDM posts this forum and there was a tip which worked for me ..

try doing the manual focus while pressing the shutter release .. this kicked the motor back in action ..

thanks for the help guys .. saved me a scare.
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 11-04-2014, 09:09 AM  
DA* 55 won't focus
Posted By techmulla
Replies: 7
Views: 748
so i turned my camera after many days, and when i press focus .. nothing happens

my camera is k5 and my lens da* 55.

is it an sdm failure?

//ysf
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 09-02-2014, 11:58 AM  
15 Limited in silver?
Posted By techmulla
Replies: 7
Views: 678
depends, if you are asking about the smc or hd version .. for HD version, then yes
Forum: Lens Clubs 09-20-2013, 11:16 PM  
DA* Club
Posted By techmulla
Replies: 4,843
Views: 645,221
My 6 months old. This vindicates my lens purcahse ..

Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 06-04-2013, 07:57 PM  
Lens comparison- which is which
Posted By techmulla
Replies: 52
Views: 8,089
the 2nd is DA*
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 01-05-2013, 03:10 PM  
Wanting to by a new lens, stuck on which one?
Posted By techmulla
Replies: 23
Views: 1,960
my vote is for 50-135
Forum: Ask B&H Photo! 01-01-2013, 12:02 PM  
Any word about unilateral pricing policy
Posted By techmulla
Replies: 2
Views: 838
does that still applies to phone-in orders?
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 10-20-2012, 06:20 PM  
Lens / Next Purchase Advice ..
Posted By techmulla
Replies: 12
Views: 1,302
I am leaning towards the two zooms also. But devided between sigma and pentax for the 16/17-50
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 10-17-2012, 11:52 AM  
Lens / Next Purchase Advice ..
Posted By techmulla
Replies: 12
Views: 1,302
And noe da* 55, needed caliberation on my k5, cant decide between da21 or da15 or sigma 17-50, which route?
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 08-25-2012, 11:59 AM  
Lens / Next Purchase Advice ..
Posted By techmulla
Replies: 12
Views: 1,302
Just pulled the trigger on k-5
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 08-13-2012, 01:21 AM  
Lens / Next Purchase Advice ..
Posted By techmulla
Replies: 12
Views: 1,302
I have been using a k-x with an M50-1.4 along with an old manual flash for the time being.

I have a baby along the way in around 7 months, also I have some money to spare (around 3000 USD) ... I am looking to upgrade my k-x and want to buy a couple of lenses and a good flash .. I have these alternative path to go

Camera Upgrade

1. Buy K-5
2. Buy K-30

Does K-30 offer anything substantiale over K-5? because I prefer shooting raw .. and 14 bit raw apeal .. also the enhanced bracketing mode.?

Lens Paths.

1. Zooms + Metz 58
2. Primes + Metz 58

1. Zooms

DA* 16-50
DA* 50-135

+ Flash

2. Primes

DA 15
DA 40
DA* 55
DA 70

+ Metz.

If you were me ... what path would have chosen? both camera wise and lenses wise?
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 10-07-2011, 11:38 PM  
b&h shows k-5 at 1799.95???
Posted By techmulla
Replies: 11
Views: 2,672
when did that happen?

DSLR Cameras

and what the
Forum: General Talk 09-30-2011, 06:24 AM  
The humiliation of Barack Obama
Posted By techmulla
Replies: 61
Views: 4,288
bible puts it that way. not Quran. disclaimer: i have read both :)
Forum: General Talk 09-25-2011, 01:03 PM  
The humiliation of Barack Obama
Posted By techmulla
Replies: 61
Views: 4,288
I am very much affraid that USA will end up on the wrong side of history this comming week.

The humiliation of Barack Obama - Opinion - Al Jazeera English
Forum: Sold Items 06-24-2011, 11:36 AM  
For Sale - Sold: DA 17-70mm SDM (Worldwide)
Posted By techmulla
Replies: 9
Views: 3,695
i am torn between the 16-50 and this one ..

with 17-70 .. i find it more useful range ...

with 16-50 .. i find for 200 usd more, i get weather sealing, and more wide ange ..

why did you buy 16-50?
Forum: General Talk 06-16-2011, 02:15 AM  
Well that didn't take too long
Posted By techmulla
Replies: 0
Views: 1,261
In a pure coincidence, Gaddafi impeded U.S. oil interests before the war - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

In a pure coincidence, Gaddafi impeded U.S. oil interests before the war
BY GLENN GREENWALD


When the war in Libya began, the U.S. government convinced a large number of war supporters that we were there to achieve the very limited goal of creating a no-fly zone in Benghazi to protect civilians from air attacks, while President Obama specifically vowed that "broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake." This no-fly zone was created in the first week, yet now, almost three months later, the war drags on without any end in sight, and NATO is no longer even hiding what has long been obvious: that its real goal is exactly the one Obama vowed would not be pursued -- regime change through the use of military force. We're in Libya to forcibly remove Gaddafi from power and replace him with a regime that we like better, i.e., one that is more accommodating to the interests of the West. That's not even a debatable proposition at this point.

What I suppose is debatable, in the most generous sense of that term, is our motive in doing this. Why -- at a time when American political leaders feel compelled to advocate politically radioactive budget cuts to reduce the deficit and when polls show Americans solidly and increasingly opposed to the war -- would the U.S. Government continue to spend huge sums of money to fight this war? Why is President Obama willing to endure self-evidently valid accusations -- even from his own Party -- that he's fighting an illegal war by brazenly flouting the requirements for Congressional approval? Why would Defense Secretary Gates risk fissures by so angrily and publicly chiding NATO allies for failing to build more Freedom Bombs to devote to the war? And why would we, to use the President's phrase, "stand idly by" while numerous other regimes -- including our close allies in Bahrain and Yemen and the one in Syria -- engage in attacks on their own people at least as heinous as those threatened by Gaddafi, yet be so devoted to targeting the Libyan leader?

Whatever the answers to those mysteries, no responsible or Serious person, by definition, would suggest that any of this -- from today's Washington Post -- has anything to do with it:

The relationship between Gaddafi and the U.S. oil industry as a whole was odd. In 2004, President George W. Bush unexpectedly lifted economic sanctions on Libya in return for its renunciation of nuclear weapons and terrorism. There was a burst of optimism among American oil executives eager to return to the Libyan oil fields they had been forced to abandon two decades earlier. . . .

Yet even before armed conflict drove the U.S. companies out of Libya this year, their relations with Gaddafi had soured. The Libyan leader demanded tough contract terms. He sought big bonus payments up front. Moreover, upset that he was not getting more U.S. government respect and recognition for his earlier concessions, he pressured the oil companies to influence U.S. policies. . . .

When Gaddafi made his deal with Bush in 2004, he had hoped that returning foreign oil companies would help boost Libya’s output . . . The U.S. government also encouraged American oil companies to go back to Libya. . . .

The companies needed little encouragement. Libya has some of the biggest and most proven oil reserves -- 43.6 billion barrels -- outside Saudi Arabia, and some of the best drilling prospects. . . . Throughout this time, oil prices kept rising, whetting the appetite for greater supplies of Libya's unusually "sweet" and "light," or high-quality, crude oil.

By the time Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice visited in 2008, U.S. joint ventures accounted for 510,000 of Libya's 1.7 million barrels a day of production, a State Department cable said. . . .

But all was not well. By November 2007, a State Department cable noted "growing evidence of Libyan resource nationalism." It noted that in his 2006 speech marking the founding of his regime, Gaddafi said: "Oil companies are controlled by foreigners who have made millions from them. Now, Libyans must take their place to profit from this money." His son made similar remarks in 2007.

Oil companies had been forced to give their local subsidiaries Libyan names, the cable said. . . .

The entire article is worth reading, as it details how Gaddafi has progressively impeded the interests of U.S. and Western oil companies by demanding a greater share of profits and other concessions, to the point where some of those corporations were deciding that it may no longer be profitable or worthwhile to drill for oil there. But now, in a pure coincidence, there is hope on the horizon for these Western oil companies, thanks to the war profoundly humanitarian action being waged by the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize winner and his nation's closest Western allies:

But Libya's oil production has foundered, sagging to about 1.5 million barrels a day by early this year before unrest broke out. The big oil companies, several of which had drilled dry holes, felt that Libya was not making the best exploration prospects available. One major company privately said that it was on the verge of a discovery but that unrest cut short the project.

With the country torn by fighting, the big international oil companies are treading carefully, unwilling to throw their lot behind Gaddafi or the rebel coalition.

Yet when representatives of the rebel coalition in Benghazi spoke to the U.S.-Libya Business Council in Washington four weeks ago, representatives from ConocoPhillips and other oil firms attended, according to Richard Mintz, a public relations expert at the Harbour Group, which represents the Benghazi coalition. In another meeting in Washington, Ali Tarhouni, the lead economic policymaker in Benghazi, said oil contracts would be honored, Mintz said.

"Now you can figure out who’s going to win, and the name is not Gaddafi," Saleri said. "Certain things about the mosaic are taking shape. The Western companies are positioning themselves."

"Five years from now," he added, "Libyan production is going to be higher than right now and investments are going to come in."

I have two points to make about all this:

(1) The reason -- the only reason -- we know about any of this is because WikiLeaks (and, allegedly, Bradley Manning) disclosed to the world the diplomatic cables which detail these conflicts. Virtually the entirety of the Post article -- like most significant revelations over the last 12 months, especially in the Middle East and North Africa -- are based exclusively on WikiLeaks disclosures. That's why we know about Gaddafi's increasingly strident demands for the "Libyanization" of his country's resource exploitation. That's how we know about most of the things we've learned about the world's most powerful political and corporate factions over the last 12 months. Is there anything easier to understand than why U.S. Government officials are so eager to punish WikiLeaks and deter future transparency projects of this sort?

(2) Is there anyone -- anywhere -- who actually believes that these aren't the driving considerations in why we're waging this war in Libya? After almost three months of fighting and bombing -- when we're so far from the original justifications and commitments that they're barely a distant memory -- is there anyone who still believes that humanitarian concerns are what brought us and other Western powers to the war in Libya? Is there anything more obvious -- as the world's oil supplies rapidly diminish -- than the fact that our prime objective is to remove Gaddafi and install a regime that is a far more reliable servant to Western oil interests, and that protecting civilians was the justifying pretext for this war, not the purpose? If (as is quite possible) the new regime turns out to be as oppressive as Gaddafi but far more subservient to Western corporations (like, say, our good Saudi friends), does anyone think we're going to care in the slightest or (at most) do anything other than pay occasional lip service to protesting it? Does anyone think we're going to care about The Libyan People if they're being oppressed or brutalized by a reliably pro-Western successor to Gaddafi?

In 2006, George Bush instructed us that there was a "responsible" and an "irresponsible" way for citizens to debate the Iraq War: the "responsible" way was to suggest that there may be better tactics for waging the war more effectively, while the "irresponsible" way was to outrageously insinuate that perhaps oil or Israel or deceit played a role in the invasion:

Yet we must remember there is a difference between responsible and irresponsible debate -- and it's even more important to conduct this debate responsibly when American troops are risking their lives overseas.

The American people know the difference between responsible and irresponsible debate when they see it. They know the difference between honest critics who question the way the war is being prosecuted and partisan critics who claim that we acted in Iraq because of oil, or because of Israel, or because we misled the American people. And they know the difference between a loyal opposition that points out what is wrong, and defeatists who refuse to see that anything is right.

Earlier this month, Hillary Clinton hosted a meeting of top executives from a wide array of corporations -- Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, Halliburton, GE, Chevron, Lockheed Martin, Citigroup, Occidental Petroleum, etc. etc. -- to plot how to exploit "economic opportunities in the new Iraq." And one WikiLeaks "diplomatic" cable after the next reveals constant government efforts to promote the interests of Western corporations in the developing world. Nonetheless, the very notion that the U.S. wages wars not for humanitarian or freedom-spreading purposes, but rather to exploit the resources of other nations for its own large corporations, is deeply "irresponsible" and unSerious. As usual, the ideas stigmatized with the most potent taboos are the ones that are the most obviously true.

It's certainly possible to contend reasonably that (as was true for Iraq) removing a heinous dictator and other humanitarian outcomes will be the incidental by-product of our war in Libya even if not its purpose (although, as was also true in Iraq, one would need to see the regime that replaces Gaddafi to know if that's true). And it's fine -- or at least candid -- to argue, as Ann Coulter often does, that "of course we should go to war for oil. . . .We need oil. That's a good reason to go to war." But to believe that humanitarianism (protection of Libya civilians) was why we went to war in Libya requires a blindness so willful and complete that it's genuinely difficult to describe.



UPDATE: To clarify what I believe was already clear: the point here is not that the U.S. invaded Libya in order to steal its oil. That's not the West's modus operandi. The point is that what distinguishes Gaddafi and made him a war target is not the claimed humanitarian rationale (he brutalized his own people) any more than "Saddam's gassing his own people" (25 years ago when he was a close American ally) was the reason the U.S. invaded Iraq. Instead, what distinguished Gaddafi and made him a war target was that he had become insufficiently compliant -- an unreliable and unstable servant to the West.

The U.S. does not object in the slightest when a leader oppresses or even attacks his own people. The U.S. adores leaders who do things like that. Its best friends in the region have long done and continue to do exactly that -- from Mubarak to the Saudis to Yemen's Saleh to the Bahrainis, not to mention the Shah of Iran and even our one-time good friend Saddam. The very idea that the U.S. Government woke up one day and suddenly decided that it can no longer abide a leader who mistreats his own people -- and that's why we went to Libya -- is so ludicrous that it's actually painful to hear that people believe that. It so obviously confuses pretext with cause. If Gaddafi had continued to be as compliant as he had been in the past, does anyone really believe we would have invaded his country and spent months trying to kill him and replace him with another regime?

That's not to say that Gaddafi's "resource nationalism" is the only or even overriding motive for the war in Libya. Wars are typically caused by the interests of multiple factions and rarely have just one motive. As Jim Webb explained in arguing that the U.S. has no vital interest in Libya, the French and British are far more reliant on Libyan oil than the U.S. is (and this reader offers a rational dissent and alternative explanation for the war). But the U.S. has long made clear that it will not tolerate hostile or disobedient rulers in countries where it believes it has vital interests, and that's particularly true in oil rich nations (which is one reason for the American obsession with Iran). It's just hard to believe that any rational person would believe that the war in Libya is unrelated to the fact that Gaddafi has been increasingly obstructionist in allowing Western oil companies access to that nation's oil and that Libya is so rich in oil.
Forum: Photographic Technique 06-06-2011, 01:44 PM  
natural or hard work?
Posted By techmulla
Replies: 19
Views: 2,932
An excellent thread
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion 05-24-2011, 02:27 PM  
Android remote to shoot Pentax camera
Posted By techmulla
Replies: 56
Views: 23,866
any headphone jack or something?
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 05-19-2011, 09:50 PM  
DA* 16-50 or DA 17-70 with AFG-540 Flash?
Posted By techmulla
Replies: 12
Views: 2,611
The problem with Tammy is, what if i get a copy that has back/front focusing problem.
I am in Pakistan and can't afford to take risk.

The Pentax Lenses make more sense to me.

I am personally leaning towards the 17-70 and flash combo.
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 05-19-2011, 01:44 PM  
DA* 16-50 or DA 17-70 with AFG-540 Flash?
Posted By techmulla
Replies: 12
Views: 2,611
Looking to replace my kit zoom .. which would make more sense?

Thanks

//ysf
Forum: Photographic Technique 04-20-2011, 11:27 AM  
Portrait Pics with Wire-less Flash K20D
Posted By techmulla
Replies: 9
Views: 2,008
flash needs time to recharge its back on to the same power
Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 04-10-2011, 02:42 PM  
Shooting Portraits
Posted By techmulla
Replies: 26
Views: 2,912
there is a scale which shows a marker rangining from -3 to +3 ..

the market should always be at zero. if not, adjust the shutter speed.

if you are too shoot at f 5.6 .. trying using the Av mode.
Forum: General Talk 04-02-2011, 11:59 PM  
This hardly come as a surprise ..
Posted By techmulla
Replies: 2
Views: 1,386















You Tube



Search took 0.01 seconds | Showing results 1 to 25 of 107

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:20 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top