Probably not any cheaper.
At 01:18 PM 3/10/2003 -0500, you wrote:
Here's an interesting question. Suppose that Pentax made a brand new
K1000, metal body and all> What would they have to charge for such a
beast? Could it be made much cheaper than the Nikon FMA3?
Steven Desjardins
Department of C
It would be better to use the FM2n, since that was in production for a
long time with a price history. I would not be surprised if the price
ratio difference between the K1000 and FM/FM2n was pretty constant over
time. When the FM2n stopped being sold last year it sold for $400-$500.
The K1000
Or take the features of the ZX-M and put it in the K1000 metal body, now
that would be a very attractive camera to me. The ZX-M has been compared as
the K1000 replacement.
> Here's an interesting question. Suppose that Pentax made a brand new
> K1000, metal body and all> What would they have to
Rick wrote:
Some may argue that film sales has declined over the past few years and this may
signalled the end of analog photography. This is hardly from the truth as if you look
at the recent photo industry's sales survey, film is starting to make a come back
again.
REPLY:
Here in Norway we
I am usually a lurker on the list, but reading all the posts from everyone here on Pentax digital, I find that most people have their facts misplaced.
First of all, the market isn't going full digital yet and it may not be for many years. The fact is, people still want good old fashioned "prints".
- Original Message -
From: Brad Dobo
Subject: Re: Pentax future: advanced and classy or cheap and
shoddy? [was: RE: Hypothetical Question]
> Hey Bill, when you looked at the Canadian site, did you notice
something
> odd? Nice new site, but they don't list a single flash
un
>
Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2002 10:31 AM
Subject: Re: Pentax future: advanced and classy or cheap and shoddy? [was:
RE: Hypothetical Question]
>
> - Original Message -
> From: Pål Jensen
> Subject: Re: Pentax future: advanced and classy or cheap and
> shoddy? [was: RE
tely. And stock the
stuff in Canada
Brad
- Original Message -
From: "Alan Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2002 9:09 AM
Subject: Re: Pentax future: advanced and classy or cheap and shoddy? [was:
RE: Hypothetical Questi
- Original Message -
From: Pål Jensen
Subject: Re: Pentax future: advanced and classy or cheap and
shoddy? [was: RE: Hypothetical Question]
> Dan wrote:
>
> > I just looked at Pentax's lenses on B&H, are there more
lenses than
> > they list? They show 8 p
Oh, just an FYI for Canadians. I cannot remember, but one member I've
discussed with on previous occasions. I bitched loudly at Pentax Canada, and
probably just from luck, they got *new* brochures for 35mm lenses. It looks
like the same old one, until you look closer and see the additional new
le
l Message -
From: "Glen O'Neal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2002 1:49 AM
Subject: RE: Pentax future: advanced and classy or cheap and shoddy? [was:
RE: Hypothetical Question]
> One point to remember. We heard quite a few m
Just my humble opinion
Glen
-Original Message-
From: Alexander Krohe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2002 2:43 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Pentax future: advanced and classy or cheap and shoddy? [was:
RE: Hypothetical Question]
Pål
Alexander wrote:
> I think in the 90s the product management was even
> hostile against high quality 35mm gear as they also
> ditched the successor to the PZ-1p without any
> replacement. Instead they kept the PZ-1p in the
> product line for a IMO give away price (but
> nevertheless couldn't sel
Pål wrote: --
> Sure, but I don't think LX with AF should be
interpreted litterally; more of an AF
> camera that occupies the LX place in the line-up.
Yes, that is how I have meant it.
>Both Nikon and Canon sell well of
> their upper level bodies. When a company like
Kyocera c
How about the FM10? That should fit the typical Pentax Pocketbook. Pentax
mostly sells cheap cameras, because most Pentax buyers are cheap. Pentax
figured this out years ago and then fired their market research department,
because they're cheap too.
BR
From: frank theriault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
B
Big surprise! The F100 just about nails all your specs. It misses the
viewfinder by 2% (96%), and I guess makes the weight (27.7 oz). The problem
with Pentax is that what Pentax users wish for, other manufacturers already
make and sell.
BR
From: Mike Johnston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
After all, Nikon
If you can't mix and match, there is no reason to buy Pentax AF gear.
BR
From: Mike Johnston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
you couldn't mix and match and you couldn't use both--which would
it be?
> Bought new:
>
> Pentax K2
> Pentax ME (black)
> Pentax ME winder
> Pentax LX (three)
> Pentax LX finders (most of them)
> Pentax LX winder
> Pentax Z-1p
> Pentax MZ-S
> Pentax 280T flash
> Pentax 400T Flash
> Pentax 500FTZ(?) flash
>
> Pentax 18/3.5
> Pentax A 24/2.8
> Pentax FA Limited 31/1.8
Hi, Ronald,
Well, the lens changing thing is a matter of practise, maybe!
The Spotmatics are very sturdy cameras, as evidenced by the number of
people on this list who still use them! The meters tend to go on them (I
doubt that they were designed to last 30 or 40 years), but they can be
replaced
> On Wednesday, December 18, 2002, at 05:05 PM, Bruce Dayton wrote:
>
> >
> > I can assure you, that as each product is contemplated, careful
> > consideration is given to it's ability to make money. Consumer demand
> > comes from people who buy new things. So if we list all the stuff we
> >
See interspersed comments below
Pål wrote:--
>> I think at the end of it's life time the LX was 3x
as
>> expensive as it initially was.
>> Too expensive.
>> The desire for ultimate quality vanishes as prices
>> increase.
> Yes, but also the fact that there are limits on how
long you c
That probably describes the average photographer in any developed country.
At 07:06 AM 12/19/2002 -0500, you wrote:
If I had to guess, I'd say the "average" USA Pentax enthusiast got the
camera and lens as a gift and uses it 3 times a year. I don't think
that fits this group.
Lon
frank theriau
If I had to guess, I'd say the "average" USA Pentax enthusiast got the
camera and lens as a gift and uses it 3 times a year. I don't think
that fits this group.
Lon
frank theriault wrote:
>
> Even if they do "monitor" us once in a while, or even all the time, I can't
> believe that they put muc
And, gathering from what I read here:
Flash will not fire if the LX "thinks" it can do
the exposure without flash.
"Sticky mirror" would not have been a complaint
when the LX was released, at least, I hope not.
-Lon
Pål Jensen wrote:
>
> Mark wrote:
>
> > It's a pity the PDML didn't exist when
rote:
Hi Peter,
I saw and held one in Sydney at a camera store near Martin Place on
George street.
Bob
- Original Message -
From: "Peter Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, December 20, 2002 4:17 AM
Subject: Re: Hypothetical Question
Hi Peter,
I saw and held one in Sydney at a camera store near Martin Place on
George street.
Bob
- Original Message -
From: "Peter Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, December 20, 2002 4:17 AM
Subject: Re: Hypothetical Question
The fact that the LX was only available in Japan made it rather difficult
for most of us to buy. Hell I can't see a MZ-S in the proverbial flesh despite
having two relatively well stocked camera stores which both carry Pentax
within easy driving distance.
At 09:19 AM 12/18/2002 -0600, you wrote:
But the important thing to remember is that we wouldn't like the brand if they
didn't meed our needs, at least as some time weather today or in the past.
At 07:20 PM 12/18/2002 -0600, you wrote:
> But the people on this is are not a couple hundred users, they are a couple
> of hundred flag wavers
I remember those...
At 08:20 PM 12/18/2002 -0500, you wrote:
Pål Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Mark wrote:
>
>> It's a pity the PDML didn't exist when the LX was introduced. It would
have
>> been interesting to read the inevitable complaints.
>
>
>I remember the compaints: it was too big
>> 1. A 98% or 100% viewfinder with good "snap" for easy manual focusing
>
> I really wanted #1 (or part of) for the MZ-S, but I was told that to get
> 100% it was expensive, like doubling the cost. I can see why Pentax didn't
> bother with it given their market. Too bad. Not sure what you mean
A wire canoe at that!
Pål Jensen wrote:
Amercan beer is like making love in a canoe
.
--
Shaun Canning
Cultural Heritage Services
High Street, Broadford,
Victoria, 3658.
www.heritageservices.com.
It also helps that around here at least, you can't find Pentax SLR's in any of
the large discount retailers. Local Wal-Mart's for example carry a couple of
Canon Models a Nikon model and a Minolta Model, Pentax is represented by
IQZooms.
Pentax probably won't put up with Wal-Mart's extortion dem
Amercan beer is like making love in a canoe
Struthwater in the beer! That would cause a general strike and riots
where I live. You don't mess with a blokes wife, cars, sheds, dogs or
beer, although the first one is optional.
Cheers
Shaun
T Rittenhouse wrote:
Also, I resent the implication, I drink that stuff they make over here.
Gr
Mark wrote:
> It's a pity the PDML didn't exist when the LX was introduced. It would have
> been interesting to read the inevitable complaints.
I remember the compaints: it was too big and bulky, used batteries, and had useless
features like automatic mode. It was essentially a tool for family
Glen wrote:
> For a very impressive review including image comparisons of the EOS D1s and
> 35mm and 645 (buy the way he uses the Pentax 645) see this page below.
>
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/1ds/1ds-field.shtml
He isn't. He is comparing his digital camera with another
Alexander wrote:
> Interestingly, a majority here confesses how they
> prefer manual focus and even all-manual bodies over
> the new AF-bodies. In the real world however, exactly
> the contrary has happened: Obviously because of a lack
> of demand, most manual focus and all all-manual 35mm
> SLRs
You must be thinking about the big manufacturers, Bud, Coors, Miller, stuff
not fit
to swill for pigs. There's lots of good Beer made in America, just not these.
At 03:26 PM 12/18/2002 -0800, you wrote:
Cotty wrote:
>
> >If God loves me there is a full-frame digital SLR with fast imaged
stabl
Hee-hee!
It's because of these sorts of posts that we're all so glad you're back, Tom!
cheers,
frank
T Rittenhouse wrote:
> All I am saying is that the people in Pentaxes marketing
> department seem to be pretty good engineers .
>
> Ciao,
> Graywolf
> http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto
>
Nah, I think he bought it because some camera freak buddy said Canon's are
the best camera made. Of course, all those TV ads meant that he had already
heard of Canon. All I am saying is that the people in Pentaxes marketing
department seem to be pretty good engineers .
Ciao,
Graywolf
http://pages.
Also, I resent the implication, I drink that stuff they make over here.
Grolsh, Pilsner Urquel, and occassionally some of your english ale are my
usual choices. Though I have heard that that stuff is only for export
because you guys only drink Bud & Coors nowadays.
A related anecdote:
I was sitti
On Wednesday, December 18, 2002, at 04:40 PM, frank theriault wrote:
Even if they do "monitor" us once in a while, or even all the time, I
can't
believe that they put much stock in our opinions. We're what, a
couple of hundred
enthusiasts? That's a pretty small sample, and hardly representa
Hey, I am the one who was trying to find a sucker to bet me.
Ciao,
Graywolf
http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto
- Original Message -
From: "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Pentax List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 6:14 PM
Su
>Just not sure how the CMOS works vs the CCD.I always associated CMOS
>as start up computer programing.I have seen the Canon 1D and it looks
>nice and its cheaper than the Dxx series from Nikon.
>Any CMOS commentsCotty?
>From what I gather, the CMOS uses vastly less power than a comparable
Cotty wrote:
>
> >If God loves me there is a full-frame digital SLR with fast imaged stablized
> >lenses in my future. I am betting Pentax won't have one out by then. Anyone
> >want to wager a beer or two on that. I like free beer!
>
> I'll bet you a bottle of Wychwood's Hobgoblin against a tin
Hi, Tom,
My bet is that the vast majority of Rebel users have no idea that all those big
white lenses on the sidelines of NFL football games are C lenses. They
probably bought their Rebels because Andre Agassi's mug is on the tube, trying
to tell us that he uses one (yeah, right!). That's ~r
IL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 6:07 PM
Subject: Re: Hypothetical Question
> "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >CMOS is a far better option than CCD however it has only recently been
> >developed to a point where it would be sui
"Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>CMOS is a far better option than CCD however it has only recently been
>developed to a point where it would be suitable for professional photographic
>applications. CCD sensors will displaced completely in the not to distant
>future.
>
>See:
>
>http://
>The do not "officially" monitor this list. Therefore, what you are asking is
>silly. Some of us on the list know people who work for Pentax. We know what
>they say. However, I can almost guaranty they if you post a question to
>Pentax on this list, it will not be answered.
All companies that have
On 18 Dec 2002 at 16:27, David Brooks wrote:
> Just not sure how the CMOS works vs the CCD.I always associated CMOS
> as start up computer programing.I have seen the Canon 1D and it looks
> nice and its cheaper than the Dxx series from Nikon.
> Any CMOS commentsCotty?
CMOS is a far better o
On 18 Dec 2002 at 14:45, Len Paris wrote:
> I hope they listen now. I would buy a 6MP CCD or CMOS DSLR and would
> not mind if the chip is APS sized. If they could manage a CMOS chip like
> the Foveon, with some enhancements over the one used in the Sigma SD-9,
> I'd be very happy. I don't need
On 18 Dec 2002 at 14:27, Brad Dobo wrote:
> So it looks to me like most won't be happy unless they release a DSLR on the
> traditional LX body, make it steel and heavy, and use as much mechanical parts
> as possible. A mechanical analog digital...interesting :)
A rigid chassis is just as importa
Even if they do "monitor" us once in a while, or even all the time, I can't
believe that they put much stock in our opinions. We're what, a couple of hundred
enthusiasts? That's a pretty small sample, and hardly representative of the
market as a whole. We don't have much influence beyond our gro
Sorry, Brad,
But, I think you've got the whole marketing thing backwards (I'm saying this
from the viewpoint of someone who knows ~nothing~ about marketing, btw).
I shouldn't have to buy the "latest and greatest" equipment, to support my
favourite company, so they can bring out something that I d
Original Message -
> From: "T Rittenhouse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 1:56 PM
> Subject: Re: Hypothetical Question
>
> > The do not "officially" monitor this list. Therefore, w
Hi, Ronald,
I keep hearing that bayonet mount is so much faster to change lenses
than screwmount, but my experience doesn't agree. I just now walked
over to my cameras, and timed a lens exchange with both bayonet and
screwmount. Under 5 seconds for each. Even if I'm off by a second or
two, the
: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 3:27 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: RE: Hypothetical Question
Two thinks i like about the D1 even with the 80-200 f2.8 on it,is its
well balanced even with the weight.The Pentax DSLR would have to ,for
me,be aswell.
Also the shutter"lag" is that
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 14:56:27 -0600
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: Hypothetical Question
Personally although I love Pentax gear I am considering a move to
C. I
have done a lot of research on the EOS 1Ds and am really impressed
with the
images produced
> It's a pity the PDML didn't exist when the LX was introduced. It would
have
> been interesting to read the inevitable complaints.
Now that is really interesting
> 1. A 98% or 100% viewfinder with good "snap" for easy manual focusing
I really wanted #1 (or part of) for the MZ-S, but I was told that to get
100% it was expensive, like doubling the cost. I can see why Pentax didn't
bother with it given their market. Too bad. Not sure what you mean by snap
Message-
From: Len Paris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 2:45 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Hypothetical Question
I hope they listen now. I would buy a 6MP CCD or CMOS DSLR and would
not mind if the chip is APS sized. If they could manage a CMOS chip like
I hope they listen now. I would buy a 6MP CCD or CMOS DSLR and would
not mind if the chip is APS sized. If they could manage a CMOS chip like
the Foveon, with some enhancements over the one used in the Sigma SD-9,
I'd be very happy. I don't need anything a lot larger than that. Keep
the price $2
Mike Johnston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>No matter WHAT an AF LX would look like, there would still be people who
>would find fault with it, be disappointed with it, or loudly complain that
>it is missing the one essential feature they wanted. Designing cameras must
>be a pretty thankless task.
Mike Johnston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The PDML might be viewed in aggregate to evaluate general
>> perceptions and trends.
>One thing I'm saying is that we may _not_ be an accurate reflection of
>general perceptions and trends. We're an enthusiast group with very
>"non-general" attitudes an
> If there was a modern Af camera that was built
> according to the same quality level as the LX and that
> was accordingly priced (hint: where I live the
> 31mm/1.8 ltd. lens is almost 4x as expensive as was
> the K-series 28mm/2), and if your only option was to
> buy new, what would you choose: t
Mike Johnston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>People here wonder whether Pentax monitors this
>list (they do), and whether they listen to our advice when advising Japan
>about product development...I don't know whether they do that or not, but I
>have to wonder if it would be productive if they did.
On Wednesday, December 18, 2002, at 09:05 AM, Steve Desjardins wrote:
To support the upcoming Pentax DSLR release, I enclose
$50___$100 $6000__
Please send me the free T-Shirt and my PDML membership for the next
year.
That had better be a 14 Mp T-shirt for $6K . . .
To support
Find an old Encyclopedia Britannica published around 1890, it contains
detailed instructions on the chemical basics to make your own nitrate based
film, you will have to adopt the nitrocellulose film stock from the
explosive's section however, (well nothing's perfect I guess).
At 11:02 PM 12/17
I would use the camera that suits my needs.
Kids: can't cope without autofocus MZ-5
Birds - hummingbirds e.g., give me an MZ-S
Travel photo into poorer areas: take my cheapest ME or whatever
Otherwise: LX
Blowups and high quality pictures: Medium Format
As written here before - what is good q
So we will see what happens!
I think Pentax knows that many users sticks to them since they have great
compatibility. But not many people start with Pentax since they have no silent and
ultra fast quit cheap motors and plenty of gear not mentioning that sale assistants
usual advise "new buyers"
Thing I like about the Pentax system is not having to choose ... I wouldn't
want to lose either my LX or my ZX-5n. I think I use both about equally.
> My question is this: Could Pentax actually use this list for advice
> and stay in business? We may be too eclectic a group to be a good
> source of market research. We still argue over the PZ-1p vs the MZ-S.
> Many here don't even want autofocus.
This is pretty much what I was wondering abou
To support the upcoming Pentax DSLR release, I enclose
$50___$100 $6000__
Please send me the free T-Shirt and my PDML membership for the next
year.
That had better be a 14 Mp T-shirt for $6K . . .
Steven Desjardins
Department of Chemistry
Washington and Lee University
Lexington, VA
In theory, I prefer my manual focus cameras, especially my Spotmatics, two of
which still work, and my Non-MLU 6x7, or my SuperProgram, when I need a camera
with a motor drive, to set up on the tripod and trigger with a long cable.
My eyesight has faded a bit with age, however, so when I'm on vacat
Dear Sir:
To support the upcoming Pentax DSLR release, I enclose
$50___$100 $6000__
Please send me the free T-Shirt and my PDML membership for the next year.
best,
mishka
> From: Brad Dobo
> Subject: Hypothetical Question taken further...
> Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 20:51:11 -0800
>
Since my usage went from an sp500 to an MV to ZX-7 to an MZ-S I'm not
really knowledgeable enough to compare. I didn't use many of the older
cameras folks here rave about. I do like the feel of the SP500 over the
ZX-7 but not the MZ-S.
My question is this: Could Pentax actually use this list fo
That about says it all, Paul!
keith whaley
Paul Stenquist wrote:
>
> The older bodies, without a doubt. LX, MX, and Spotmatic F are my
> favorites. Focus and exposure control are part of the fun. To leave that
> up to the machine would be like taking the bus instead of driving a
> sports car.
>
Until they make a digi, eh Cotty?
> -Original Message-
> From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> I have no doubts. Metal bodied, LX and MX.
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Cotty
>
>
> Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at
> http://www.macads.co.uk/
> _
>So let me ask a hypothetical question here. Asked of everyone. IF you have
>to choose between EITHER the older, metal bodied, manual focus Pentax family
>(Spotmatics, M series, A series, up to LX) ***OR*** the
>polycarbonate-bodied, AF Pentax family (P series, ZX series, up to
>MZ-S)--and you coul
Leon Altoff a écrit:
I'd shoot the MZ-S - as I do now. The only thing I want that it
doesn't have is flash compensation with the older flashes. I have a
fairly light weight macro flash built out of a broken AF240FT and with
my Z1p I can adjust flash compensation, with the MZ-S I can't.
...
I already use AF lenses with my MF bodies.
At 10:09 PM 12/17/2002 -0500, you wrote:
Older, metal, for sure, for their simplicity and larger viewfinders more
than anything else. To paraphrase a Harvard professor's remark about reading
new books, "Whenever a new camera body comes out, I buy two old
>I have seen many Spotmatics
>which have died, and I know while it would be true to say that we won't know
>how long any camera will last until it reaches the same vintage, my guess is
>that the fewer mechanical parts a camera has to wear out, and the more
>modular it is in construction, the longer
On Tue, 17 Dec 2002 15:30:54 -0600, Mike Johnston wrote:
>So let me ask a hypothetical question here. Asked of everyone. IF you have
>to choose between EITHER the older, metal bodied, manual focus Pentax family
>(Spotmatics, M series, A series, up to LX) ***OR*** the
>polycarbonate-bodied, AF Pent
In a message dated 12/18/2002 1:28:19 AM Eastern Standard Time, MAILER-DAEMON writes:
> In a message dated 12/17/2002 11:50:36 PM Eastern Standard Time,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > What I'm thinking is, we as a whole group are the serious amateurs,
> > or professionals using Pentax. We are
Trouble is Jim, unless any newly launched Pentax DSLR is earth
shatteringly teeth clatteringly revolutionary, then it will be too
little too late. Many of us will hang around because we know what we
want (i.e. lenses) or we have heaps of money tied up in systems. But the
one's a company needs a
Hi tech v manual and mechanical? That's exactly the quandary I've faced
lately. My reponse, as coincidentally noted in another post today, is to
swing both ways, as explained here:
http://www.bkpix.com/gear.htm
Bob
--- Brad Dobo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However, we all talk about Pentax and their
> position, rank and financial,
> and what they will be in the future, and
> really..what about that darned
> DSLR? What I'm thinking is, we as a whole group are
> the serious amateurs,
> or professionals u
Brad,
I'm one of those older Pentax users who bought stuff during the screw mount
days. I have lots of SMC Takumars that I use with my old Spotmatic and a
couple of ESII bodies. I have some K-mount lenses to use with an old LX and
a K2DMD. After playing with my Optio 230 I can see getting a dslr
Well, I don't have a lot of experience to speak from, but I do have both the K-1000
and MZ-5n now. Both camera bodies have pluses and minuses. Neither is exactly what I
want.
But considering the fact that I lost a lot of shots with the K-1000 because cranking
the film to advance it for the next
On Tuesday, December 17, 2002, at 03:30 PM, Mike Johnston wrote:
So let me ask a hypothetical question here. Asked of everyone. IF you
have
to choose between EITHER the older, metal bodied, manual focus Pentax
family
(Spotmatics, M series, A series, up to LX) ***OR*** the
polycarbonate-bodied
> If you could use either "old (metal manual-focus) bodies with AF
> lenses" or "new (AF) bodies with old (manual focus) lenses," which
> would you choose?
Ooh, that's cruel, Paul, very cruel...
Fred
Older, metal, for sure, for their simplicity and larger viewfinders more
than anything else. To paraphrase a Harvard professor's remark about reading
new books, "Whenever a new camera body comes out, I buy two old ones."
I assume I could still mix old bodies with new lenses, and vice versa. Yes?
N
Mike - you say "...and you couldn't mix and match..."
If your hypothetical situation allows me to mix and match lenses from
different generations on the one generation body, I will go with the MZ-S
every time. I have been giving serious thought to downsizing my collection
of bodies and lenses; I h
I didn't grow up with screwmount and MF stuff too, but I'd choose easily
today the old stuff. I took my first pictures and learned with an old leica
rangefinder from my family in the late 80s till I got it robbed in 96 and
got the Mz-5N. As my lenses were expanding, I started using manual focus
stu
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Mike,
>
> Found myself using/mixing the PZ-1p with manual lenses and some autofocus at my
>daughter's gym meets. This week I switched back to the LX with a winder. Two
>advantages were apparent. 1. The shutter lag was shorter with the LX. This is not
>a surp
I like the polycarbonate bodies. AF, TTL, and other features.
Warrantees, service, availability of current accessories, etc.
Len
---
> So let me ask a hypothetical question here. Asked of
> everyone. IF you have to choose between EITHER the older,
> metal bodied, manual focus Pentax family (Sp
ver as AF and major bells and whistles have always
been available to me. It has to do with what I like: Simple, easy, manual
focus bodies.
Christian Skofteland
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: "Brad Dobo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sen
Mike Johnston wrote:
quoting someone else
> > If Pentax...would
> > have applied advances in autofocus, image
> > stabilization...how many of you would
> > be still shooting with Pentax (a majority brand)? Or
> > would you be shooting Canon FD and poking jealous fun
> > at Pentax snobs ?
>
T
Mike wrote
> So let me ask a hypothetical question here. Asked of everyone. IF you have
> to choose between EITHER the older, metal bodied, manual focus Pentax family
> (Spotmatics, M series, A series, up to LX) ***OR*** the
> polycarbonate-bodied, AF Pentax family (P series, ZX series, up to
> MZ
After having owned and used a K1000, MV, ME, Me Super, LX, MX, z-10, z-1
, and now a z-1p, my favorites are still the LX and the z-1p. It's
horses for courses stuff though folks.
I love using the LX for ambient light stuff...and the z-1p with an
AF500FTZ kicks butt for TTL flash (especially fil
1 - 100 of 113 matches
Mail list logo
