There's just some things I don't comprehend I guess. 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 15:09:29 -0400 > >you seem to not comprehend what a lens series designator is for. >Its so you KNOW by the designations exactly what type of lens >you are using, not just buying. i.e. you dont have to remember >the characteristics for every lens of possibly dozens, just every series >which is a few. >jco > >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of >Tom C >Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 2:22 PM >To: pdml@pdml.net >Subject: RE: DA70 and 24x36 coverage > > >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. -- 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.
