It could be. Wasn't intended as such though. I apologize. My point was that if nomenclature on a lens is a big issue, then I want to be in your (whoever's) shoes, because you're living pretty charmed lives. :-)
Tom C. >From: Boris Liberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <pdml@pdml.net> >To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <pdml@pdml.net> >Subject: Re: DA70 and 24x36 coverage >Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 20:23:39 +0200 > >Tom, with all honesty and due respect - this is rather impolite remark. > >Respectfully. > >Boris > >Tom C wrote: > > Who cares? If you can't think for a couple of milliseconds or can't be > > troubled to research a product you're going to plunk money down for, you > > probably shouldn't be allowed to press the shutter release. > > > > Maybe they should have gone to an incompatible mount just to make sure >that > > people that can't read don't have this problem. > > > > Tom C. > > > > > >> From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <pdml@pdml.net> > >> To: "'Pentax-Discuss Mail List'" <pdml@pdml.net> > >> Subject: RE: DA70 and 24x36 coverage > >> Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 14:11:20 -0400 > >> > >> LETS CLEAR THIS UP. IMHO, a lens series designation > >> should cover all functionalities like coverage, AF, > >> aperture rings, optimized for digital etc. They should > >> be all the same within a given designation. This is how is was for > >> K/M, A, F lenses so it was very clear what you were getting. > >> Now its getting very unclear. > >> jco > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > >> P. J. Alling > >> Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 1:39 PM > >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >> Subject: Re: DA70 and 24x36 coverage > >> > >> > >> Why? So that you can curse that they don't have aperture rings? Give me > >> a break. If a lens incidentally covers a larger format but doesn't do >it > >> > >> well, or doesn't have the mechanics to make it useful, then to do what > >> you suggest would be a disservice, as well as asking for complaints and > >> bad publicity. > >> > >> > >> J. C. O'Connell wrote: > >>> I disagree, the lenses that fully cover 24x36 should be marked so so > >>> there is confusion if you are using both aps and ff bodies. jco > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > >>> Of P. J. Alling > >>> Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 6:52 PM > >>> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >>> Subject: Re: DA70 and 24x36 coverage > >>> > >>> > >>> No it's not bad. DA lenses are guaranteed to cover 16x24 but may cover > >>> a > >>> > >>> larger format. That's the only guaranteed there is. It hurts nothing > >>> if > >>> they cover a larger format. > >>> > >>> J. C. O'Connell wrote: > >>> > >>>> If the comments below are true, it's bad. The lens designation should > >>>> convey if a lens wont cover 24x36mm IMHO. A APS-C only lens is not > >> the > >>> > >>>> same thing as a 24x36 lens and there should be an easy way to know by > >>>> the lens designation IMHO. jco > >>>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > >>>> Of Godfrey DiGiorgi > >>>> Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 3:37 PM > >>>> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >>>> Subject: Re: DA70 and 24x36 coverage > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Oct 1, 2007, at 11:46 AM, Boris Liberman wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> I am asking my question mainly because if it indeed covered full > >>>>> frame > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>>> and there were no image deterioration past the APC frame, Pentax > >>>>> probably would have given it FDA designation instead of DA. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> The D-FA mount includes an aperture ring control. DA lenses do not. > >>>> > >>>> The DA70 has no aperture ring control, it was design for use with the > >>>> digital SLR bodies. Whether it actually covers 24x36 mm format isn't > >>>> really relevant to the mount designation. > >>>> > >>>> Godfrey > >>>> > >>>> --- > >>>> Not really relevant but interesting: > >>>> > >>>> In the course of researching my latest lens acquisition, I saw an > >>>> article about someone who took an M42 mount Pentax Fish-Eye-Takumar > >>>> 17mm lens and cobbled up a mount to fit it on a 6x6 rollfilm folder > >>>> with behind-lens leaf shutter. His goal was to make circular fish eye > >>>> > >>> > >>>> images inexpensively ... it produced an image circle ~ 45mm in > >>>> diameter on the 6x6 format film, which suited his needs perfectly. > >>>> --- > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> -- > >> Remember, it's pillage then burn. > >> > >> > >> -- > >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >> PDML@pdml.net > >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > >> follow the directions. > >> > >> > >> -- > >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >> PDML@pdml.net > >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > >> follow the directions. > > > > > > > > >-- >PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >PDML@pdml.net >http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
