Re: *istD and the future (WAS: Re: Digital Formats and Partial Coverage Lenses)

[Alan Chan]

Consider similar products like 10D & D100 have been around for some time, 1 
year seem generous indeed. However, Pentax have the tendency to slowly 
update their products and Pentax users are used to hold on to their cameras 
longer. *ist D users might be satisfied a little longer than Canon or Nikon 
users.

Alan Chan
http://www.pbase.com/wlachan
I guess the basis is the whole line-up. Basically, they have promised a 
novice DSLR, the *istD and a pro DSLR. The 20% is supposedly achieved by 
2005 which means that these products should be here within a year. I also 
expect the *istD to have a life-span of 1 year at the most (I'm probably 
being generous).
_
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

RE: *istD and the future (WAS: Re: Digital Formats and Partial Coverage Lenses)

[Alan Chan]

I think the appropiate marketing will keep the *ist D from became another 
loser, but unlikely to become a real winner.

Alan Chan
http://www.pbase.com/wlachan
Me too.  If Pentax were to spend a bit on marketing the *istD, it could
be a real winner.  Just the small size and AA battery use give it a big
advantage, IMNHO.
_
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

RE: *istD and the future (WAS: Re: Digital Formats andPartialCoverage Lenses)

[Alan Chan]

Only if they are willing to do some serious markrting.

Alan Chan
http://www.pbase.com/wlachan
3. It's true that Pentax does have some reputation rebuilding to do.
_
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*   
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

Re: *istD and the future (WAS: Re: Digital Formats and PartialCoverage Lenses)

[Jim Apilado]

I agree about the lens issue.  Months ago I was excited about the Pentax
digital offering because I, like others, thought all the K mount lenses I
own would function on it.  I'm not one who wants to ruin a perfectly good K
mount lens by having it fall off the camera using the technique you
described.

Jim A.

> From: Arnold Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 07:20:54 +0200
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: *istD and the future (WAS: Re: Digital Formats and Partial
> Coverage Lenses)
> Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Resent-Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 01:16:56 -0400
> 
> As one of those who have had opportunities to hold and try the *ist D
> repeatedly I would like to say that the look, the feel and the user
> interface of the *ist D are really really nice. I had similar feelings
> when I first tried  the MZ5N, but the *ist D looks and feels a lot more
> more solid. The design of the *ist may lack anything sensational except
> size, but I would advise everybody to hold and try the *ist D before
> calling it ugly. I am absoultely happy with the design!
> 
> It is only the compatibilty issue of course which makes me wait and see
> for something better. However, yesterday I was able to try and confirm
> that the *ist D works with K lenses that are disengaged and then turned
> 15° anti-clockwise. The lens sits still firmly, the aperture is closed
> to the selected value, of course, the camera meter really works in AV
> mode, and the shutter speed is selected according to the selected
> aperture. However, the danger of dropping the lens is there, and I am
> not going to drill holes into the mount of the lens for another locking
> position, so I still ask for better compatibilty.
> 
> Arnold
> 

Re: *istD and the future (WAS: Re: Digital Formats and Partial Coverage Lenses)

[Alan Chan]

Tell this to the potential customers who cannot try before they buy.

Alan Chan
http://www.pbase.com/wlachan
Shouldn't we make our decision after taking some pictures with it?
_
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail

Re: OT:anyone made there own carriers

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 5:55 AM
Subject: Re: OT:anyone made there own carriers


> What type of card board Bill.Like the thin stuff that might be used in
seperating
> materials in a
> box,along that line.I think i have some thin stuff that is white smooth on
one side and
> greyish and a bit
> rougher on the other.

Dress shirt cardboard works well. I actually bought a dress shirt just to
get the cardboard from it

> The smooth side should be good enough you say then.
> I see what you mean about the felt atracting dust etc.
> Thats why your in Saskatchewan and im stuck in Ontario.

Dust is an issue here.

William Robb

Re: *istD and the future (WAS: Re: Digital Formats and Partial CoverageLenses)

[Arnold Stark]

As one of those who have had opportunities to hold and try the *ist D 
repeatedly I would like to say that the look, the feel and the user 
interface of the *ist D are really really nice. I had similar feelings 
when I first tried  the MZ5N, but the *ist D looks and feels a lot more 
more solid. The design of the *ist may lack anything sensational except 
size, but I would advise everybody to hold and try the *ist D before 
calling it ugly. I am absoultely happy with the design!

It is only the compatibilty issue of course which makes me wait and see 
for something better. However, yesterday I was able to try and confirm 
that the *ist D works with K lenses that are disengaged and then turned 
15° anti-clockwise. The lens sits still firmly, the aperture is closed 
to the selected value, of course, the camera meter really works in AV 
mode, and the shutter speed is selected according to the selected 
aperture. However, the danger of dropping the lens is there, and I am 
not going to drill holes into the mount of the lens for another locking 
position, so I still ask for better compatibilty.

Arnold

Re: *istD and the future (WAS: Re: Digital Formats

[ernreed2]

Stan Halpin posted:
> > 
> AND, it is not just camera stores. Best Buy, Office Max, CompUSA, and other
> office and/or computer stores have quite a stock of digital cameras.
> Presumably they catch the casual shopper looking for a computer peripheral
> rather than the photographer looking for a new camera. I have not seen any
> Pentax penetration of that market, either in the stores or the catalogs or
> web sites.

I'm glad you added this, because I meant the computer/electronics stores as 
well as the camera stores, and I now realize I didn't actually *say* so.

Re: Q about Chaining Filters

[Boris Liberman]

Hi!

KK> - Is it true or an urban legend that if you chain two filters you get
KK>   flare/reflections?

Recently I was considering to buy me some filters from a friend. So I
was given them for a try. Since they were not mine, I routinely
applied the filter and then applied simple UV filter to the filter so
that it won't be harmed. So I used 50 mm lens with polarizer attached
and UV filter attached to polarizer.

I haven't noticed any prominently bad results...

How does that count? 

Boris

Re: Digital Formats and Partial Coverage Lenses

[Paul Eriksson]

Must be swedish !!

Paul

From: "T Rittenhouse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Digital Formats and Partial Coverage Lenses
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 19:49:36 -0400
Sorry, I slipped into another language there . Sometimes the micky 
sh*
smell checker is not much help.

Ciao,
Graywolf
http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto
- Original Message -
From: "Doug Franklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 7:40 PM
Subject: Re: Digital Formats and Partial Coverage Lenses
> On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 12:23:06 -0400, T Rittenhouse wrote:
>
> > [...] that is the norm for sex months of development [...]
>
> I always thought it was NINE months! :-)
>
> TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
>
>
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 8/19/03

_
Get MSN 8 and enjoy automatic e-mail virus protection.   
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus

Re: *istD and the future (WAS: Re: Digital FormatsandPartialCoverage Lenses)

[Stan Halpin]

on 8/20/03 9:10 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> Pal posted:
> 
>> My point isn't really if one like it or not. My point is whether one likes it
> sufficiently
> better than, say, the D10 in order not to buy a Canon instead. I'm sure many
> people will
> if they are able to handle it
> 
> So the main problem then is the same as usual. If they'll get the damn thing
> INTO STORES in places other than just NY (for the States; I don't know how
> rare 
> Pentaxes are in other countries) there'll be hope.
> 
> If, as usual, they aren't visible to the casual shopper, what hope is there?
> 
> 
> 
> ERN
> still ticked that no store in San Antonio carries the Optio 550
> (thanks again Jose R for the Austin
> tip)
> 
> 
AND, it is not just camera stores. Best Buy, Office Max, CompUSA, and other
office and/or computer stores have quite a stock of digital cameras.
Presumably they catch the casual shopper looking for a computer peripheral
rather than the photographer looking for a new camera. I have not seen any
Pentax penetration of that market, either in the stores or the catalogs or
web sites.


Stan

Re: *istD and the future (WAS: Re: Digital Formats andPartialCoverage Lenses)

[ernreed2]

Pal posted:

> My point isn't really if one like it or not. My point is whether one likes it 
sufficiently
better than, say, the D10 in order not to buy a Canon instead. I'm sure many 
people will
if they are able to handle it

So the main problem then is the same as usual. If they'll get the damn thing 
INTO STORES in places other than just NY (for the States; I don't know how rare 
Pentaxes are in other countries) there'll be hope.

If, as usual, they aren't visible to the casual shopper, what hope is there?



ERN
still ticked that no store in San Antonio carries the Optio 550
(thanks again Jose R for the Austin
tip)

Re: OT- Nikon USA Repair Horror Story (long)

[T Rittenhouse]

Well, If it is not right this time, I would contact the insurance company
with all the correspondence and see what they can do. I would imagine they
would disallow Nikon's invoice and buy you a new camera. A good insurance
company can help out a lot, by putting pressure on the repair facility. Use
their clout.

Ciao,
Graywolf
http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto


- Original Message -
From: "John Mustarde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 9:46 PM
Subject: OT- Nikon USA Repair Horror Story (long)


> Many of the oldtimers on PDML know I had a Pentax repair horror story
> a few years ago.  Well, now I have a Nikon repair horror story,  It
> goes like this, if you care to read it:
>
> I hit a soft patch and performed a lo-speed semi-endo on my bicycle.
> I was on a little photo trek down the canal trail to a rural airport.
> I ended up with the imprint of a D100 on my ribs, and the D100 ended
> up dusty and gouged.  No problem, I surmised, as I surveyed the damage
> and checked for broken bones, because the camera was covered by my
> all-risks insurance policy.
>
> I called the insurer, who said send the camera to Nikon for an
> estimate.  I prepared a short but detailed list of repairs needed, and
> sent it along.  A week or so later I get a form letter from Nikon
> estimating repairs at $741.  The insurer agreed to pay all, so I was
> about set.
>
> But I know how bad communication can be, so I called Nikon and asked
> specifically would they repair the items on my list.  I told the guy
> the outer body was gouged in several places and needed replacing.  The
> person on the line said the $741 was a one-price figure which covered
> "major repair" and they would take care of everything.  I still really
> didn't believe him, so I asked a second time would they replace the
> outer shell, and put the camera in like new condition.  He again said
> they would.
>
> So a few weeks later the camera comes back.  You guessed it - the
> outer shell still had major gouges in the grip area from where it hit
> the rocks.  Not good.  I was not happy, to say the least.  If Nikon
> had told me in advance they would not or could not repair it
> completely, the insurer would cheerfully have bought me a new one.
>
> So I'm sitting with my ugly, damaged camera in my lap. I called Nikon.
> The Nikon employee initially didn't believe me when I said Nikon
> didn't fix it.  She said, very defensively,  "how do you know it's not
> fixed" and I said "because I'm staring at it in the box you sent me,
> and it still has gouges in the grip area."  The Nikon lady was upset,
> but she recovered her composure and arranged for a recall UPS label
> sent to my email immediately.
>
> So after a few days, the camera is back at Nikon.  I get another of
> their form letters.  This time is says "repairs - cosmetic" with a
> zero dollar charge under warranty for the first repair.  I didn't
> really understand the reference to "cosmetic."  But I was soon to find
> out more than I cared to know.
>
> I called NIkon to make sure they were going to replace the outer shell
> for sure this second time around. This time I asked to speak to the
> repair manager, but after checking with several people and having me
> hold a few minutes the Nikon employee came back and refused to allow
> that.  Said the repair manager does not take calls from repair
> customers under any circumstances.  Whooie, that instills confidence.
>
> Now it gets hairy.  The Nikon employee said, quite arrogantly and
> almost sarcastically, that Nikon never intended to replace the outer
> shell, because the damage was only *cosmetic*, and Nikon USA does not
> perform *cosmetic* repairs (their emphasis, not mine), no matter what
> the price.  Whooie.   I finally manage to get a supervisor on the
> phone, one from the intake department, not a repair manager.  She says
> Nikon simply will not make *cosmetic* repairs.
>
> But this time they *are* making the "cosmetic" repair.  Seems like I
> convinced them.  Something to do with the very specific letter
> describing what I wanted fixed when it was first sent in for repair.
>
> Hopefully, the camera will be back in my hands in like-new condition
> within a couple of days.  If it is not in like-new condition, I will
> probably file another claim with my insurance company for diminished
> value, or just get them to replace the damn thing.
>
> Nikon's repair philosophy is seriously flawed.  They won't make
> cosmetic repairs?  After I sent them a letter specifying cosmetic
> repairs?  Then followed up with a phone call during which a Nikon
> employee confirmed they would make the cosmetic repair as specified?
> What the heck did they actually do for my $741?  As far as I can tell
> for sure, they gave the body a wipe and cleaned the sensor. Pretty
> darn expensive if you ask me.
>
> Oh, and to add insult to injury, they kept the little plastic Nikon
> LCD cover from my camera.   Good thing I re

OT- Nikon USA Repair Horror Story (long)

[John Mustarde]

Many of the oldtimers on PDML know I had a Pentax repair horror story
a few years ago.  Well, now I have a Nikon repair horror story,  It
goes like this, if you care to read it:

I hit a soft patch and performed a lo-speed semi-endo on my bicycle.
I was on a little photo trek down the canal trail to a rural airport.
I ended up with the imprint of a D100 on my ribs, and the D100 ended
up dusty and gouged.  No problem, I surmised, as I surveyed the damage
and checked for broken bones, because the camera was covered by my
all-risks insurance policy.

I called the insurer, who said send the camera to Nikon for an
estimate.  I prepared a short but detailed list of repairs needed, and
sent it along.  A week or so later I get a form letter from Nikon
estimating repairs at $741.  The insurer agreed to pay all, so I was
about set.

But I know how bad communication can be, so I called Nikon and asked
specifically would they repair the items on my list.  I told the guy
the outer body was gouged in several places and needed replacing.  The
person on the line said the $741 was a one-price figure which covered
"major repair" and they would take care of everything.  I still really
didn't believe him, so I asked a second time would they replace the
outer shell, and put the camera in like new condition.  He again said
they would.

So a few weeks later the camera comes back.  You guessed it - the
outer shell still had major gouges in the grip area from where it hit
the rocks.  Not good.  I was not happy, to say the least.  If Nikon
had told me in advance they would not or could not repair it
completely, the insurer would cheerfully have bought me a new one.

So I'm sitting with my ugly, damaged camera in my lap. I called Nikon.
The Nikon employee initially didn't believe me when I said Nikon
didn't fix it.  She said, very defensively,  "how do you know it's not
fixed" and I said "because I'm staring at it in the box you sent me,
and it still has gouges in the grip area."  The Nikon lady was upset,
but she recovered her composure and arranged for a recall UPS label
sent to my email immediately.

So after a few days, the camera is back at Nikon.  I get another of
their form letters.  This time is says "repairs - cosmetic" with a
zero dollar charge under warranty for the first repair.  I didn't
really understand the reference to "cosmetic."  But I was soon to find
out more than I cared to know.

I called NIkon to make sure they were going to replace the outer shell
for sure this second time around. This time I asked to speak to the
repair manager, but after checking with several people and having me
hold a few minutes the Nikon employee came back and refused to allow
that.  Said the repair manager does not take calls from repair
customers under any circumstances.  Whooie, that instills confidence.

Now it gets hairy.  The Nikon employee said, quite arrogantly and
almost sarcastically, that Nikon never intended to replace the outer
shell, because the damage was only *cosmetic*, and Nikon USA does not
perform *cosmetic* repairs (their emphasis, not mine), no matter what
the price.  Whooie.   I finally manage to get a supervisor on the
phone, one from the intake department, not a repair manager.  She says
Nikon simply will not make *cosmetic* repairs. 

But this time they *are* making the "cosmetic" repair.  Seems like I
convinced them.  Something to do with the very specific letter
describing what I wanted fixed when it was first sent in for repair.  

Hopefully, the camera will be back in my hands in like-new condition
within a couple of days.  If it is not in like-new condition, I will
probably file another claim with my insurance company for diminished
value, or just get them to replace the damn thing.   

Nikon's repair philosophy is seriously flawed.  They won't make
cosmetic repairs?  After I sent them a letter specifying cosmetic
repairs?  Then followed up with a phone call during which a Nikon
employee confirmed they would make the cosmetic repair as specified?
What the heck did they actually do for my $741?  As far as I can tell
for sure, they gave the body a wipe and cleaned the sensor. Pretty
darn expensive if you ask me.

Oh, and to add insult to injury, they kept the little plastic Nikon
LCD cover from my camera.   Good thing I removed the battery and strap
and IBM Micro Drive or they might have kept those also.  

To their credit they are sending me another LCD cover.  They probably
have a lot of them laying around from other customers.

Psst - Nikon - one more little thing:  I sent you my camera with a
beat up old Vivitar body cap.  You sent it back with a nice new Nikon
body cap.  Thanks for nothing - I really liked my old Vivitar body
cap.  How the heck could you lose it?  It was attached to the camera.
Or did you decide to send me a new one, to make the camera look
better... cosmetically speaking...

--
John Mustarde
www.photolin.com

RE: Sobig F

[Cameron Hood]

Could you send me a copy of it for my collection? Don't worry; I'm on a 
M...a MM...oh, I better not say it.
(Cheers to Cotty)   ;>)

C

(I'm serious, though; I do collect them)

On Wednesday, August 20, 2003, at 12:47  PM, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 13:08:17 -0400
From: "Amita Guha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: Sobig F
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Yep, I've gotten attacked by it about 75 times. Update your antivirus
software and you'll be fine.
-Original Message-
From: Dr E D F Williams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 12:44 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Sobig F
Over the last few days I've had a sixteen messages with this
damn thing attached. Most of them from Finland -- but a few
from other places.
Don
___
Dr E D F Williams
http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams
Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery
Updated: July 31, 2003

Re: *istD and the future (WAS: Re: Digital Formats and Partial Coverage Lenses)

[T Rittenhouse]

I tend to like the nuances of tonality in chemical prints from larger
formats. Of course if you are going to do a digital print you might as well
start with digital because you are going to get that cartoon look someone
mentioned a while back anyway. But in the final analysis if your customers
like it (what I call professionally acceptable) that is all that matters.
Most consumers seem to consider television as their standard of
acceptability, digital is certainly better than that.

In case anyone doesn't know what I mean by nuances of tonality: in a digital
photo you tend to get a light blue sky (for instance), in a chemical print
you get a light blue, and lighter light blue, and darker light blue sky, and
all the tones in between. This lack of shadings is what gives digital that
painted cartoon look.

Ciao,
Graywolf
http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto


- Original Message -
From: "tom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 8:21 PM
Subject: RE: *istD and the future (WAS: Re: Digital Formats and Partial
Coverage Lenses)


> > -Original Message-
> > From: T Rittenhouse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > Funny story there, I showed my 14mp (downloaded from the
> > Kodak site) inkjet
> > prints and my 6x7 snapshot print to most everyone hanging
> > around PMDL
> > Central. Only Bernie Boston, agreed with me that the 6x7
> > was substantially
> > better. Maybe he was just humoring me, or maybe it takes a
> > lot of experience
> > to know what to look for, especially when comparing
> > professionally made
> > studio shots to snapshots. But even I agree there is no
> > question that 6mp
> > digital is professionally acceptable which has always been
> > my measuring
> > stick.
>
> I think it's more a matter of what you're used to seeing, and what
> your yardstick is. The digital prints were much "snappier". The 67
> print had a bit more detail.
>
> It just depends on what you like...if you're selling your prints to
> "regular" folk, they'll almost always take the digital. I'll
> personally take digital as well.
>
> tv
>
>
>
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 8/19/03

An Outsider's view of the *istD

[frank theriault]

A post from Leica Users Group - with the names removed to protect the
innocent:

"Well, [...] started it with his thread on the digirebel.  I had the
opportunity to play with the Pentax Ish D which is a 6MP digital camera
due out in September.  Metal body, finder useable in very dim lighting
(1/8 @F1.8 ISO 400) pretty simple control layout, JPEGS, TIFFS, RAW,
glass pentaprism.  The CCD is the same as on the Dleica 100 [...] uses.
It had a really good feel to it and fit my rather large hands.

I think this would be of more interest to this list than the digirebel
as the size is pretty close to an M with a pentaprism.  Mechanism noise
was not obnoxious.  I especially liked the limited edition lenses that
were available to use as well.

If anyone has any further questions please bring them up.  My impression

was very favorable, it was as close to an M in feel that any mostly
electronic camera has been.

Oh, MAP is $1699 and it can use any lens Pentax has made for any of
their SLR's, 42mm to 6X7 with appropriate adapters."

He seems under the impression that all Pentax lenses will work with it,
but I don't know who told him that.

cheers,
frank



--
"Jazz is about capturing the moment"
-Herbie Hancock

Re: For all Toronto and area photogs, this weekend is Buskerfest

[Brendan]

EEK! yeah they might bite us :D

 --- frank theriault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote: > I got kids.
> 
> I'm not letting them near you guys.
> 
> cheers,
> frank
> 
> Brendan wrote:
> 
> > TPDML?
> >
> >
>
__
> > Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
> 
> --
> "Jazz is about capturing the moment"
> -Herbie Hancock
> 
>  

__ 
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca

Re: For all Toronto and area photogs, this weekend is Buskerfest

[frank theriault]

I got kids.

I'm not letting them near you guys.

cheers,
frank

Brendan wrote:

> TPDML?
>
> __
> Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca

--
"Jazz is about capturing the moment"
-Herbie Hancock

RE: *istD and the future (WAS: Re: Digital Formats and Partial Coverage Lenses)

[tom]

> -Original Message-
> From: T Rittenhouse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Funny story there, I showed my 14mp (downloaded from the
> Kodak site) inkjet
> prints and my 6x7 snapshot print to most everyone hanging
> around PMDL
> Central. Only Bernie Boston, agreed with me that the 6x7
> was substantially
> better. Maybe he was just humoring me, or maybe it takes a
> lot of experience
> to know what to look for, especially when comparing
> professionally made
> studio shots to snapshots. But even I agree there is no
> question that 6mp
> digital is professionally acceptable which has always been
> my measuring
> stick.

I think it's more a matter of what you're used to seeing, and what
your yardstick is. The digital prints were much "snappier". The 67
print had a bit more detail.

It just depends on what you like...if you're selling your prints to
"regular" folk, they'll almost always take the digital. I'll
personally take digital as well.

tv

For all Toronto and area photogs, this weekend is Buskerfest

[Brendan]

TPDML?

__ 
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca

Re: Digital Formats and Partial Coverage Lenses

[T Rittenhouse]

Sorry, I slipped into another language there . Sometimes the micky sh*
smell checker is not much help.

Ciao,
Graywolf
http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto


- Original Message -
From: "Doug Franklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 7:40 PM
Subject: Re: Digital Formats and Partial Coverage Lenses


> On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 12:23:06 -0400, T Rittenhouse wrote:
>
> > [...] that is the norm for sex months of development [...]
>
> I always thought it was NINE months! :-)
>
> TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
>
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 8/19/03

Re: Digital Formats and Partial Coverage Lenses

[Doug Franklin]

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 12:23:06 -0400, T Rittenhouse wrote:

> [...] that is the norm for sex months of development [...]

I always thought it was NINE months! :-)

TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ

Re: Views on the F 70-210

[Kenneth Waller]

Anthony,
sorry to disagree, but I hold in my hands @ this very moment,  a 70-210
f4-5.6 SMC Pentax - F that has -- ta dah - an "A" position on the aperture
ring. Bought in late 1988. I use it a lot and like the results. It has been
totally trouble free. The only complaint I have is the end rotates for
focus, making the use of a polarizer a little more complicated than it could
be.

Kenneth Waller
- Original Message -
From: "Anthony Farr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 4:50 AM
Subject: Re: Views on the F 70-210


> Boris,
>
> Sorry to disappoint, but this lens lacks an "A" position.  The logic in
its
> omission is that the soft effect changes with aperture so Pentax thought
it
> undesirable to use program or Tv mode.  The lens's contemporary camera
> bodies could do Av or metered manual without the "A" setting, and body
> control of aperture was at the time unforeseen.
>
> Sometime soon I really must get down to a store with my own F85 Soft and
see
> how an *ist regards it, because even though it lacks an "A" button on the
> aperture ring it has "A" contacts on its mount.  Because of its vintage
its
> aperture actuating lever should have true linear proportionality (which
does
> not exist on pre-A series lenses).
>
> IMO Pentax should retrofit these lenses with an "A" type aperture ring at
a
> nominal cost, because they were so recently made.  In fact the FA version
> was only dropped from the current lens list immediately before the *ist
> became available, and was outwardly identical except for the colour of the
> finish (black vs slate grey), was optically identical, and AFAIK only
> differed in having an MTF chip fitted.
>
> regards,
> Anthony Farr
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Boris Liberman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
> > Hi!
> >
> > On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 22:24:25 -0600
> >   "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >Any post M series lens has the A position. This includes A series, F
> > >series and FA series lenses.
> > >
> > >William Robb
> >
> > I see. Well, I did not know that. But then I suppose it means that my
> > soon to arrive F 85/2.8 soft would have A position too. That's way
> > cool.
> >
> > Still, I am curious - what is the difference then between F and FA
> > lenses? Something to do with the way FA lenses "talk" to the camera
> > body?
> >
> > I am sorry I am taking this subject off-track, but I hope noone is
> > offended.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Boris
> >
>
>

My cheap lenses and the *istD

[Bill Owens]

While on GFM last weekend I attached 2 of my inexpensive lenses to check
out the results with the 1.5x magnification.

With the Zenit 16mm fisheye I was pleased that the normal extreme
curvature at the edges was reduced considerably.  Still there, but not
as noticeable.

The 500mm mirror lens showed much less light fall off at the edges.

In these cases, the small sensor is a benefit.

Bill

Re: *istD and the future (WAS: Re: Digital Formats and Partial Coverage Lenses)

[Peter Jansen]

Pål wrote:

"However, there are some reasons for optimism. The
rather ambitious goal of 20% marketshare for DSLR's,
can only indicate that Pentax have a total revamp of
their camera line-up's in store."

This seems most likely. DSLR's have opened up the
playing field quite a bit. Just look at the digital
P&S market. Sony is a big player, as well as
Panasonic, who jumped on board right away. They never
made film P&S's. Mind you P&S buyers are far different
from DSLR buyers. The Pro segment may not change
unless Pentax has something that is really great & not
half-baked like the MZ-S (though I like the MZ-S).

We'll have to wait & see.

Peter



--- Pål_Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alex wrote:
> 
> I bet Pentax will sell every *istD they can make,
> even maybe if they price
> it slightly higher. The main concern is if they can
> recover the R&D costs
> (and make some profit) before replacing it (100D and
> 10D are older and sells
> in higher volume). I'd really like to know how an
> *istD-like camera costs
> (R&D+manufacturing)...
> I'm optimist, however: I think Pentax will survive
> :-))
> 
> 
> REPLY:
> I'm afraid I'm not very optimistic regarding the
> *ist D's fate in the marketplace. There are three
> fundamental problems with the camera: 1) it is not
> entry level enough to make an impact. By this I mean
> it is just a "me too" compared to the D10 and the
> D100 and has no obvious price advantage compared to
> those. It will face hard competition from
> forthcoming, cheaper DSLR's. 2) Design. The *istD is
> ugly with no design flair thats going to convince
> anyone. It is not one of those hip digital products
> (like the Optio S) that sells on looks alone. Nor is
> it one of those classic great Pentax designs. It
> small size is not going to be seen as compelling
> enough for the majority of users. Small size works
> as selling argument when the products are
> "conceptually small" as well. The *ist D looks just
> like a shrinken big cameras whereas small slr's from
> the past had a "small look" like the OM series and
> Pentax M's. 3) Pentax brand image has deteriorated
> significantly during the last decade!
>   as the company have only been concerned about
> short term profit instead of innovation and
> long-term staying power. Pentax have deliberately
> traded marketshare for SLR's for profit. Its going
> to be hard to reestablish their former glory (20-30%
> market share). Also, Pentax lacks the compelling
> technology and perceived lens line-up completeness
> of the main competition (Minolta have announced USM
> lenses) and therefore will be seen as less
> desireable. The *ist D will mainly sell to existing
> Pentax users, and that may well be all Pentax is
> aiming for. 
> 
> However, there are some reasons for optimism. The
> rather ambitious goal of 20% marketshare for DSLR's,
> can only indicate that Pentax have a total revamp of
> their camera line-up's in store. At least if their
> claim is going to be taken even remotely serious.
> Pentax must at least be on equal term with the
> competition in technology and line-up in order to
> achieve such a goal. There will be four mayor player
> in the DSLR market by 2005. One of them will have
> the largest slice of the market (Canon). Hence, 20%
> market share, which Pentax aims for, is a
> considerable share. The president of Pentax have
> quoted the last year of saying that company will
> make a new, more compact 67 (it must, in my opinion,
> mean motorized film transport (and why not? the
> camera is totally battery dependent anyway) and
> quite possibly AF when their at it; a digital
> solution for the 645 system; and two additional (to
> the *istD) 35mm DSLR's - one novice model and a pro
> camera. Earlier it has been stated that P!
>  entax will have three film slr's in the line-up as
> well and it now seems reasonable to assume  that
> they are siblings of the three DSLR's. Finally, the
> long awaited flagship is in the cards and before
> 2005 as well. 
> I fell pretty confident that the latest
> modifications of the lens mount imply a change to
> USM AF system. Such a move sort of explains it all.
> If Pentax makes USM lenses there are no real reason
> not to not use the opportunity to change to a fully
> electronic lenses mount. After all, such lenses will
> be of limited use and value on older cameras anyway
> as their AF won't function. If such a move is in the
> plans, it follows that there are no real incentive
> to maintain backwards compatibility to lenses older
> than the "A" series in entry and mid level lenses
> when such compatibility is inevitably going to be
> absent in forthcoming high-end lenses. This is all
> speculation on my part, but this scenario explains
> both the Limited lenses and the MZ-S. Basically,
> they are stepping stone, or upgrade paths if you
> like, from older cameras and lenses to the
> forthcoming models. It is no coincidence, is
> suspect, that the Limiteds echo some of the
> "classic" K lenses inc

Neat gizmo

[Dan Scott]

http://www.bmumford.com/photo/camctlr.html

Has a neat gizmo for catching high speed events, unattended triggering, 
time lapse photography. Haven't used it, but it looks cool.

Dan Scott

Re: *istD and the future (WAS: Re: Digital Formats and Partial Coverage Lenses)

[John Coyle]

I don't know whether it's marketing or not, but the *ist-D featured on the
front page sidebar of this week's IT section of "The Australian"
(Australia's national newspaper).  That's a wide promotion to a
digital-savvy section of the public, and generally the reader demographics
are A-B both financially and educationally.  Might make a difference to
awareness her, anyway.

John Coyle
Brisbane, Australia

- Original Message - 
From: "Bill Owens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 3:14 AM
Subject: RE: *istD and the future (WAS: Re: Digital Formats and Partial
Coverage Lenses)


> Me too.  If Pentax were to spend a bit on marketing the *istD, it could
> be a real winner.  

Re: More serious competition for *ist-D - Kiss Digital/300D

[Dan Scott]

On Wednesday, August 20, 2003, at 04:30  PM, Jostein wrote:

Does anyone else get the feeling that "before 2005" ought to be "before
2004" if Pentax are to keep up with the competition?
Jostein
"Should" and "Ought To" have no conceptually equivalent terms in the 
Pentax lexicon (belongs in the class of things that include the number 
of dolphin words for "doorknob").

Dan

Re: A coincidence, I hope.

[frank theriault]

Hey, Anthony,

H  Knowing Aaron a bit, as I do, I doubt that he's 35 yet - could be,
but I think he's younger.

But, I realized that it wasn't him when I read about this fellow running two
blocks.  That's not the Aaron we all know!  

Besides, Brother Aaron wouldn't have even tried to run, he'd have beat them off
with his 6x7!

cheers,
frank

Anthony Farr wrote:

> I spotted this item at http://www.clumsycrooks.com/
> Hopefully it's not OUR Aaron :-/
>
> "Pants Slipped Down Again!
>
> In February, police in Clifton, N.J., chased Aaron Reynolds, 35, who was
> driving a stolen car, into New York City, where Port Authority police joined
> the pursuit. After the car was stopped, Reynolds bolted on foot, ran about
> two blocks, and came crashing down to the sidewalk because his low-riding
> pants slipped down and tripped him. According to police, Reynolds said he
> was giving up and asked for a minute to compose himself. During the lull, he
> darted off again, but this time barely ran a few yards before his pants
> slipped down again and tripped him.
>
> [- The Record (Hackensack) -]"

--
"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist
fears it is true." -J. Robert
Oppenheimer

Re: *istD and the future (WAS: Re: Digital Formats and Partial Coverage Lenses)

[T Rittenhouse]

Since I use my incident meter about 80% of the time, all I am interested in
is that it will work with the older lenses. It does, just not with auto
coupled metering. It is missing the aperture ring feedback coupling, not the
stopdown coupling. You have to lock the specs somewhere, or you will never
begin production.

Ciao,
Graywolf
http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto


- Original Message -
From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 5:52 PM
Subject: Re: *istD and the future (WAS: Re: Digital Formats and Partial
Coverage Lenses)


> On 20 Aug 2003 at 17:40, T Rittenhouse wrote:
>
> > BTW, the cost per camera to have added the mechnical meter coupling was
> > quoted to me as $20. Don't sound like much, but multiply that by the
number of
> > cameras to be made and it is a substancial sum.
>
> The minuscule additional cost (which obviously would have been a small
> percentage of the total camera cost) would have made a whole lot of
existing
> Pentax shooters a lot more confident.
>
> Rob Studdert
> HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
> Tel +61-2-9554-4110
> UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
> Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.509 / Virus Database: 306 - Release Date: 8/12/03

Re: *istD and the future (WAS: Re: Digital Formats and Partial Coverage Lenses)

[T Rittenhouse]

You will have to ask Jerome. He came up with it. I just quoted his little
joke that he repeated several times, the point was he liked the camera maybe
more than the rest of us.

Ciao,
Graywolf
http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto


- Original Message -
From: "Jostein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 5:53 PM
Subject: Re: *istD and the future (WAS: Re: Digital Formats and Partial
Coverage Lenses)


> Tom,
> where did that figure $1500 come from?
> Hmmm
> Jostein
> -
> Pictures at: http://oksne.net
> -
> - Original Message -
> From: "T Rittenhouse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 9:02 PM
> Subject: Re: *istD and the future (WAS: Re: Digital Formats and Partial
> Coverage Lenses)
>
>
> > By the way, you can add Jerome to that list, he was only there one day,
> but
> > we had to pry the camera from his hands just to try it our selves. His
> > comment on the camera was, "I thought this was a free program, but its
> going
> > to end up costing me $1500".
> >
> > Ciao,
> > Graywolf
> > http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto
> >
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Christian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 1:30 PM
> > Subject: Re: *istD and the future (WAS: Re: Digital Formats and Partial
> > Coverage Lenses)
> >
> >
> > > It makes me happy to see Tom, TV, Bill and Mark so enthusiastic about
> the
> > > *ist-D.  I've pretty much committed to going 100% digital and seeing
the
> > > results of the camera in "real-world" use, combined with their praise
> > gives
> > > me the confidence to buy the camera without a second thought.
> > >
> > > Christian
> > > (ignoring Pal's negativity; personally I think it is a decent looking
> > camera
> > > with all the features I could hope for)
> > >
> > > - Original Message -
> > > From: "Bill Owens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 1:14 PM
> > > Subject: RE: *istD and the future (WAS: Re: Digital Formats and
Partial
> > > Coverage Lenses)
> > >
> > >
> > > > Me too.  If Pentax were to spend a bit on marketing the *istD, it
> could
> > > > be a real winner.  Just the small size and AA battery use give it a
> big
> > > > advantage, IMNHO.
> > > >
> > > > Bill
> > > >
> > > >
> > > 
> > >
> > > - Original Message -
> > > From: "T Rittenhouse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 12:39 PM
> > > Subject: Re: *istD and the future (WAS: Re: Digital Formats and
Partial
> > > Coverage Lenses)
> > >
> > >
> > > > I agree with Mark.
> > > >
> > > > Ciao,
> > > > Graywolf
> > > > http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto
> > >
> > > > I got to use an *ist-D quite a bit last weekend and I disagree
> strongly
> > > > with both of those points.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Mark Roberts
> > > > Photography and writing
> > > > www.robertstech.com
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > ---
> > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > Version: 6.0.509 / Virus Database: 306 - Release Date: 8/12/03
> >
> >
> >
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.509 / Virus Database: 306 - Release Date: 8/12/03

Re: More serious competition for *ist-D - Kiss Digital/300D

[T Rittenhouse]

Well, at the risk of repeating myself. The istD seems to me to be the very
first DSLR that was designed to be a DSLR rather than an adaptation of a
FSLR. As such it is at least one generation ahead of the competition. You
pick it up and you are 50% convinced it fits nicely in your hands and has a
solid no nonsense feel all the controls make sense. You look through the
viewfinder and you are 100% convinced. No I doubt that it will take
substantially better photos than the competition. But it is in ergonomics
that it wins.

Did someone mention that it has the hypermode that allows you to put it in
program mode then tweak the aperture with one wheel and the shutter speed
with the other? Pretty neat.

Ciao,
Graywolf
http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto


- Original Message -
From: "Jostein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 5:30 PM
Subject: Re: More serious competition for *ist-D - Kiss Digital/300D


> Does anyone else get the feeling that "before 2005" ought to be "before
> 2004" if Pentax are to keep up with the competition?
> Jostein
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Pål Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >
> > According to Pentax president, a novice DSLR will be in place before
2005.
> And a pro model as well. My guess is that PMA 2004 could be interesting.
If
> not then, certainly at the Ulan Bator show.
> >
>
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.509 / Virus Database: 306 - Release Date: 8/12/03

Re: *istD and the future (WAS: Re: Digital Formats and Partial Coverage Lenses)

[Jostein]

Tom,
where did that figure $1500 come from?
Hmmm
Jostein
-
Pictures at: http://oksne.net
-
- Original Message - 
From: "T Rittenhouse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 9:02 PM
Subject: Re: *istD and the future (WAS: Re: Digital Formats and Partial
Coverage Lenses)


> By the way, you can add Jerome to that list, he was only there one day,
but
> we had to pry the camera from his hands just to try it our selves. His
> comment on the camera was, "I thought this was a free program, but its
going
> to end up costing me $1500".
>
> Ciao,
> Graywolf
> http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Christian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 1:30 PM
> Subject: Re: *istD and the future (WAS: Re: Digital Formats and Partial
> Coverage Lenses)
>
>
> > It makes me happy to see Tom, TV, Bill and Mark so enthusiastic about
the
> > *ist-D.  I've pretty much committed to going 100% digital and seeing the
> > results of the camera in "real-world" use, combined with their praise
> gives
> > me the confidence to buy the camera without a second thought.
> >
> > Christian
> > (ignoring Pal's negativity; personally I think it is a decent looking
> camera
> > with all the features I could hope for)
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Bill Owens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 1:14 PM
> > Subject: RE: *istD and the future (WAS: Re: Digital Formats and Partial
> > Coverage Lenses)
> >
> >
> > > Me too.  If Pentax were to spend a bit on marketing the *istD, it
could
> > > be a real winner.  Just the small size and AA battery use give it a
big
> > > advantage, IMNHO.
> > >
> > > Bill
> > >
> > >
> > 
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "T Rittenhouse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 12:39 PM
> > Subject: Re: *istD and the future (WAS: Re: Digital Formats and Partial
> > Coverage Lenses)
> >
> >
> > > I agree with Mark.
> > >
> > > Ciao,
> > > Graywolf
> > > http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto
> >
> > > I got to use an *ist-D quite a bit last weekend and I disagree
strongly
> > > with both of those points.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Mark Roberts
> > > Photography and writing
> > > www.robertstech.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.509 / Virus Database: 306 - Release Date: 8/12/03
>
>
>

Re: *istD and the future (WAS: Re: Digital Formats and Partial Coverage Lenses)

[Rob Studdert]

On 20 Aug 2003 at 17:40, T Rittenhouse wrote:

> BTW, the cost per camera to have added the mechnical meter coupling was
> quoted to me as $20. Don't sound like much, but multiply that by the number of
> cameras to be made and it is a substancial sum.

The minuscule additional cost (which obviously would have been a small 
percentage of the total camera cost) would have made a whole lot of existing 
Pentax shooters a lot more confident.

Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

Re: *istD and the future (WAS: Re: Digital Formats and Partial Coverage Lenses)

[T Rittenhouse]

Funny story there, I showed my 14mp (downloaded from the Kodak site) inkjet
prints and my 6x7 snapshot print to most everyone hanging around PMDL
Central. Only Bernie Boston, agreed with me that the 6x7 was substantially
better. Maybe he was just humoring me, or maybe it takes a lot of experience
to know what to look for, especially when comparing professionally made
studio shots to snapshots. But even I agree there is no question that 6mp
digital is professionally acceptable which has always been my measuring
stick.

Ciao,
Graywolf
http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto


- Original Message -
From: "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Pentax List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 4:44 PM
Subject: Re: *istD and the future (WAS: Re: Digital Formats and Partial
Coverage Lenses)


> >I just (minutes ago) made a 12 x 18 inch print from one of my *ist-D
> >shots from last weekend:
> >(http://www.robertstech.com/graphics/pages/IMGP0068.htm) and all I can
> >say is HOLY SH*T! Amazing! I could sell this as a fine art print next to
> >any of my shots printed from film. In fact, I expect I will.
>
> :-)
>
> Now you know how I felt just under one year ago! I just so dearly wish
> that I could have been a Pentax. But I don't cry over spilled milk. I
> don't cry at all.
>
> Congrats Mark. You've seen the light!
>
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>   Cotty
>
>
> ___/\__
> ||   (O)   |  People, Places, Pastiche
> ||=|  www.macads.co.uk/snaps
> _
> Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.509 / Virus Database: 306 - Release Date: 8/12/03

Re: *istD and the future (WAS: Re: Digital Formats and Partial Coverage Lenses)

[T Rittenhouse]

BTW, the cost per camera to have added the mechnical meter coupling was
quoted to me as $20. Don't sound like much, but multiply that by the number
of cameras to be made and it is a substancial sum. But there would seem to
be a good chance that it would be considered a reasonable cost on a more
expensive camera. The same thing seems to be true of USB 2..0, they had
already specified 1.1 and upgrading to 2.0 would have added about the same
to the cost. $20 here, $20 there, it would not take long to price the camera
out of the market niche it was designed for in my opinion.

Ciao,
Graywolf
http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto


- Original Message -
From: "Pål Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

>and perhaps changes to the lens mount.



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.509 / Virus Database: 306 - Release Date: 8/12/03

Re: *istD and the future (WAS: Re: Digital Formats and Partial

[Cotty]

>I just so dearly wish
>that I could have been a Pentax.

LOL. Now there's a Freudian slip!

Now if I was a Pentax, what model would I be?

8-D




Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   |  People, Places, Pastiche
||=|  www.macads.co.uk/snaps
_
Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk

Re: More serious competition for *ist-D - Kiss Digital/300D

[Jostein]

Does anyone else get the feeling that "before 2005" ought to be "before
2004" if Pentax are to keep up with the competition?
Jostein

- Original Message - 
From: "Pål Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
> According to Pentax president, a novice DSLR will be in place before 2005.
And a pro model as well. My guess is that PMA 2004 could be interesting. If
not then, certainly at the Ulan Bator show.
>

Re: gfm

[Jostein]

Tom,
that's just the sort of thing I would love to do. To ramble around and look
at the scenery...

OTOH, it would be fun to spend time with fellow PDML'ers too.

Both ways, this looks like I will have to take a week or maybe two off work.
Could be the experience of a lifetime.

Jostein
-
Pictures at: http://oksne.net
-
- Original Message - 
From: "T Rittenhouse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 9:40 PM
Subject: Re: gfm


> Rent a car Jostein, and run down via Skyline Drive trough the Shanadoah
> National Park and the Blue Ridge Parkway (they are separate sections of
the
> same road). It will take longer than the Interstates but will take you
> trough some of the most beautiful country in the Eastern US. Go back via
the
> Interstates and check out our ugly cities along the way. NYC and DC are
both
> wonderful places to visit with more things to see and do than you could
> check out in a lifetime.
>
> Ciao,
> Graywolf
> http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Jostein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 2:36 PM
> Subject: Re: gfm
>
>
> > The only firm plan I have is to go by plane to NY or DC.
> > From there, I don't know... Guess the options are plane to Charlotte or
> rent
> > a car...
> > Jostein
> > -
> > Pictures at: http://oksne.net
> > -
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "Pentax List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 12:00 AM
> > Subject: Re: gfm
> >
> >
> > > No time like the present. Just been researching costs for GFM/NPW.
> > > Lessee, that's one pre-registration at $65. Then we have one return
air
> > > fare from London Gatwick direct to Charlotte at £350. Then a few day's
> > > car hire from Charlotte at $200 (full size - anyone that knows me
knows
> I
> > > don't do 'small')...sheesh, this is not going to be cheap.
> > > Fortunately I have a few things that I need to sell between now and
> then,
> > > not to mention a little slush fund for emergencies. Of course, the
right
> > > thing to do would be to sell the gear, empty the slush fund, and pay
> some
> > > off the credit card.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The fun thing isn't always the right thing 
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >   Cotty
> > >
> > >
> > > ___/\__
> > > ||   (O)   |  People, Places, Pastiche
> > > ||=|  www.macads.co.uk/snaps
> > > _
> > > Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.509 / Virus Database: 306 - Release Date: 8/12/03
>
>
>

Re: gfm

[Jostein]

Thanks, Mark.
For myself, the options are NY, DC or Seattle...:-)
Jostein
-
Pictures at: http://oksne.net
-
- Original Message - 
From: "Mark Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 8:51 PM
Subject: Re: gfm


> "Jostein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >The only firm plan I have is to go by plane to NY or DC.
> >From there, I don't know... Guess the options are plane to Charlotte or
rent
> >a car...
>
> If you or any of the other "across the pond" PDMLers find an affordable
> flight combination that gets you to Pittsburgh I can probably give you a
> ride down to North Carolina.
>
> -- 
> Mark Roberts
> Photography and writing
> www.robertstech.com
>
>

Re: *istD and the future (WAS: Re: Digital Formats and Partial Coverage Lenses)

[Herb Chong]

more important for a lot of other people is that the 5 megapixel advanced P&S shoot 
cameras have been doing just about exactly as high quality for a lot lower price.

i did a comparison while i was away on vacation and shot some macro pictures with the 
same compositions using my Nikon Coolpix 5000 and my FA* 80-200 f2.8 with the Canon 
500D close-up lens. the close-up lens decreases sharpness a little, but only to the 
point where it is about as good as my FA 24-90 f3.5-4.5 instead of being noticeably 
better. on an 11x14 print on my Epson 1280 where i use the full frame of the digital 
camera and i use the minimal cropped full frame of the film camera, the digital image 
appears sharper. this is shot on Provia 100F and scanned at 4000 dpi with my Nikon 
Coolscan 4000ED. Digital ICE softens the image a little, but i can still see the 
individual dye clouds in the slide.

in my experience shooting Provia 100F side by side with my digital camera, the only 
time film is a clear winner in terms of resolution and sharpness is when i am using my 
FA 50mm f2.8 macro. my FA* 24 f2.0 and FA* 80-200 f2.8 show a less marked advantage 
over the digital camera. the highly rated FA 24-90 f3.5-4.5 and Sigma 15-30 f3.5-4.5 
don't show more resolution most of the time.

my conclusion is that unless you use only FA* or Limited lenses, the 6 megapixel 
sensor isn't going to be the limiting factor in terms of sharpness.

Herb
- Original Message - 
From: "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Pentax List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 16:50
Subject: RE: *istD and the future (WAS: Re: Digital Formats and Partial Coverage 
Lenses)


> *That's* the thing that will sell 6MP DSLRs - *that's* the thing that has
> sold Mark -  and *that's* what sold me on it a year ago. Printed as nice
> big blowups to that size, that's all we need, and in that case, it equals
> the (perceived) quality of film.

RE: *istD and the future (WAS: Re: Digital Formats and Partial Coverage Lenses)

[tom]

> -Original Message-
> From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 
> >But that's not possible, you need at least 150 megs to equal the
> >quality possible with film.
> 
> Yeah but Tom, ending up on an inkjet, a 12X18 print doesn't 
> care if it
> was shot with 15 megs, 150 megs or 15 million megs. 
>

I was making fun of folks who like to spew dubious math.

tv
 

Re: *istD and the future (WAS: Re: Digital Formats and Partial Coverage Lenses)

[Pål Jensen]

Bill wrote:


> I disagree about a "pro" model.  Firstly Pentax is not going to spend
> the money to give freebies and unlimited free service to so called
> "pros".  Secondly, it seems to me that Pentax is quite happy in the
> advanced amateur/enthusiast market


It is nothing to disagree about really. It was stated by Pentax president at the *istD 
press conference that they intend to make a pro DSLR whatever that means. Oh and it 
was in context of 35mm; not medium format.
Remember that Pentax have a significant share and tradition in high-resolution 
"imaging" through their medium format involvement. Hence, making a "pro" DSLR fit in 
this tradition. Besides, Pentax needs high-end credibility because the competition 
has. I don't think anyone can achieve 20% market share without a full and complete slr 
line-up. Remember Pentax wants to more than double their curent market share. For this 
they cannot stick to the formula used the last 15 or so years. 

Pål

RE: *istD and the future (WAS: Re: Digital Formats and Partial Coverage Lenses)

[Bill Owens]

I disagree about a "pro" model.  Firstly Pentax is not going to spend
the money to give freebies and unlimited free service to so called
"pros".  Secondly, it seems to me that Pentax is quite happy in the
advanced amateur/enthusiast market

Bill

-Original Message-
From: Pål Jensen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 4:43 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: *istD and the future (WAS: Re: Digital Formats and Partial
Coverage Lenses)


Bill wrote:


> I think that the life-span of any DSLR is considered to be about 1 
> year by all manufacturers.


Perhaps the *istD will be even shorter? I believe its main function will
be to quench the initial thirst for a Pentax DSLR. I hope its sucessor
and the pro model will be released with new goodies like new higher end
lenses and perhaps changes to the lens mount.

Pål

RE: *istD and the future (WAS: Re: Digital Formats and PartialCoverage Lenses)

[Cotty]

>But that's not possible, you need at least 150 megs to equal the
>quality possible with film.

Yeah but Tom, ending up on an inkjet, a 12X18 print doesn't care if it
was shot with 15 megs, 150 megs or 15 million megs. It can only be
displayed to the ability of the resolving power of the blobs of ink on
the print, right?

*That's* the thing that will sell 6MP DSLRs - *that's* the thing that has
sold Mark -  and *that's* what sold me on it a year ago. Printed as nice
big blowups to that size, that's all we need, and in that case, it equals
the (perceived) quality of film.





Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   |  People, Places, Pastiche
||=|  www.macads.co.uk/snaps
_
Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk

Re: *istD and the future (WAS: Re: Digital Formats and PartialCoverage Lenses)

[Cotty]

>I just (minutes ago) made a 12 x 18 inch print from one of my *ist-D
>shots from last weekend:
>(http://www.robertstech.com/graphics/pages/IMGP0068.htm) and all I can
>say is HOLY SH*T! Amazing! I could sell this as a fine art print next to
>any of my shots printed from film. In fact, I expect I will.

:-)

Now you know how I felt just under one year ago! I just so dearly wish
that I could have been a Pentax. But I don't cry over spilled milk. I
don't cry at all.

Congrats Mark. You've seen the light!




Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   |  People, Places, Pastiche
||=|  www.macads.co.uk/snaps
_
Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk

Re: gfm

[Mark Roberts]

"Jostein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>The only firm plan I have is to go by plane to NY or DC.
>From there, I don't know... Guess the options are plane to Charlotte or rent
>a car...

If you or any of the other "across the pond" PDMLers find an affordable
flight combination that gets you to Pittsburgh I can probably give you a
ride down to North Carolina. 

-- 
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com

Re: Wide Angle Lens Recommendations?

[Lon Williamson]

I only own one 20mm.  It's a Spiratone Pleura-Coat f2.8 with "A" setting.
I've never a) shot into the sun or b) taken architectural shots.  For
other stuff, it pleases me.  It can be had cheap.  $100 or less.
gfen wrote:
On Fri, 15 Aug 2003, Patrick Wunsch wrote:

I am looking for a decent wide angle lens, perhaps something in the 18mm to
20mm range, and would like to hear your recommendations.  Money is major


Awhile ago, I was going to purchase one of the Russian lenses for use with 
my Pentax. I want to say it was the Mir 47K, but it may have had a 
different model number. It was most assuredly a Mir, and it was most 
assuredly 20mm and cheap.. But that's all I'm "assure" of. :)

Re: Digital Formats and Partial Coverage Lenses

[Pål Jensen]

Mark wrote:

> At this point evidence suggests that the reverse is true; that chip
> makers can't meet the demand from camera makers.

The digital revolution has happened faster than anticipated by every manufacturer. 
This is particularly true for DSLR's where the transition was a veritable explosion 
that took everyone unaware. I find it unlikely that Nikon (or anyone else) should have 
grossly overestimated the demand for the D100. But then who knows?

Pål

Re: gfm

[Jostein]

The only firm plan I have is to go by plane to NY or DC.
>From there, I don't know... Guess the options are plane to Charlotte or rent
a car...
Jostein
-
Pictures at: http://oksne.net
-
- Original Message - 
From: "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Pentax List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 12:00 AM
Subject: Re: gfm


> No time like the present. Just been researching costs for GFM/NPW.
> Lessee, that's one pre-registration at $65. Then we have one return air
> fare from London Gatwick direct to Charlotte at £350. Then a few day's
> car hire from Charlotte at $200 (full size - anyone that knows me knows I
> don't do 'small')...sheesh, this is not going to be cheap.
> Fortunately I have a few things that I need to sell between now and then,
> not to mention a little slush fund for emergencies. Of course, the right
> thing to do would be to sell the gear, empty the slush fund, and pay some
> off the credit card.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The fun thing isn't always the right thing 
>
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>   Cotty
>
>
> ___/\__
> ||   (O)   |  People, Places, Pastiche
> ||=|  www.macads.co.uk/snaps
> _
> Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
>
>
>

Re: Asahi Pentax Microscope Adapter II

[Herb Chong]

i have used the adapter without an eyepiece. it vignettes a bit.

Herb
- Original Message - 
From: "Dr E D F Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 11:41
Subject: Re: Asahi Pentax Microscope Adapter II


> Herb,
> 
> You put the adapter on the microscope tube. Then slip in an eyepiece. After
> which you can screw the camera onto the adapter or fit a Mount Adapter K
> first.

Re: gfm

[Jostein]

- Original Message - 
From: "tom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[...]
> Pencil in the
> date: June 4-6, 2004
> 
> See you then!
> 
> tv

Yep. :-)

Jostein

Re: *istD and the future

[Mark Roberts]

"tom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>> -Original Message-
>> From: Mark Roberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> I just (minutes ago) made a 12 x 18 inch print from one of my *ist-D
>> shots from last weekend:
>> (http://www.robertstech.com/graphics/pages/IMGP0068.htm)
>> and all I can
>> say is HOLY SH*T! Amazing! I could sell this as a fine art
>> print next to
>> any of my shots printed from film. In fact, I expect I will.
>
>But that's not possible, you need at least 150 megs to equal the
>quality possible with film.

HAR!

To tell you the truth, I think I might have been able to get *slightly*
better quality with ISO 100 film. But then, the camera was set to ISO
400 when I took that shot :-P

-- 
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com

RE: *istD and the future (WAS: Re: Digital Formats and Partial Coverage Lenses)

[Doug Brewer]

At 01:53 PM 8/20/03, throwing caution to the wind, tom wrote:

> -Original Message-
> From: Mark Roberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> I just (minutes ago) made a 12 x 18 inch print from one of my *ist-D
> shots from last weekend:
> (http://www.robertstech.com/graphics/pages/IMGP0068.htm)
> and all I can
> say is HOLY SH*T! Amazing! I could sell this as a fine art
> print next to
> any of my shots printed from film. In fact, I expect I will.
But that's not possible, you need at least 150 megs to equal the
quality possible with film.
tv
Yup. Do the math, Mark.

RE: *istD and the future (WAS: Re: Digital Formats and Partial Coverage Lenses)

[tom]

> -Original Message-
> From: Mark Roberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> I just (minutes ago) made a 12 x 18 inch print from one of my *ist-D
> shots from last weekend:
> (http://www.robertstech.com/graphics/pages/IMGP0068.htm)
> and all I can
> say is HOLY SH*T! Amazing! I could sell this as a fine art
> print next to
> any of my shots printed from film. In fact, I expect I will.

But that's not possible, you need at least 150 megs to equal the
quality possible with film.

tv

Re: *istD and the future (WAS: Re: Digital Formats and Partial Coverage Lenses)

[Mark Roberts]

Lawrence Kwan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>Pal has made up his mind about *ist-D the day it was announced; and
>that is before he has touched the camera or seen the camera in person.
>Shouldn't we make our decision after taking some pictures with it?

I just (minutes ago) made a 12 x 18 inch print from one of my *ist-D
shots from last weekend:
(http://www.robertstech.com/graphics/pages/IMGP0068.htm) and all I can
say is HOLY SH*T! Amazing! I could sell this as a fine art print next to
any of my shots printed from film. In fact, I expect I will.

-- 
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com

Re: *istD and the future (WAS: Re: Digital Formats and Partial Coverage Lenses)

[Christian]

It makes me happy to see Tom, TV, Bill and Mark so enthusiastic about the
*ist-D.  I've pretty much committed to going 100% digital and seeing the
results of the camera in "real-world" use, combined with their praise gives
me the confidence to buy the camera without a second thought.

Christian
(ignoring Pal's negativity; personally I think it is a decent looking camera
with all the features I could hope for)

- Original Message - 
From: "Bill Owens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 1:14 PM
Subject: RE: *istD and the future (WAS: Re: Digital Formats and Partial
Coverage Lenses)


> Me too.  If Pentax were to spend a bit on marketing the *istD, it could
> be a real winner.  Just the small size and AA battery use give it a big
> advantage, IMNHO.
>
> Bill
>
>


- Original Message - 
From: "T Rittenhouse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 12:39 PM
Subject: Re: *istD and the future (WAS: Re: Digital Formats and Partial
Coverage Lenses)


> I agree with Mark.
>
> Ciao,
> Graywolf
> http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto

> I got to use an *ist-D quite a bit last weekend and I disagree strongly
> with both of those points.
>
> -- 
> Mark Roberts
> Photography and writing
> www.robertstech.com
>
>
>
>

Re: *istD and the future (WAS: Re: Digital Formats and PartialCoverage Lenses)

[Lawrence Kwan]

Pal has made up his mind about *ist-D the day it was announced; and
that is before he has touched the camera or seen the camera in person.
Shouldn't we make our decision after taking some pictures with it?


On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, Mark Roberts wrote:
> >I'm afraid I'm not very optimistic regarding the *ist D's fate in the
> >marketplace. There are three fundamental problems with the camera:
> >1) it is not entry level enough to make an impact. By this I mean it is
> >just a "me too" compared to the D10 and the D100 and has no obvious
> >price advantage compared to those. It will face hard competition from
> >forthcoming, cheaper DSLR's. 2) Design. The *istD is ugly with no design
> >flair thats going to convince anyone.
>
> I got to use an *ist-D quite a bit last weekend and I disagree strongly
> with both of those points.

-- 
--Lawrence Kwan--SMS Info Service/Ringtone Convertor--PGP:finger/www--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.vex.net/~lawrence/ -Key ID:0x6D23F3C4--

RE: *istD and the future (WAS: Re: Digital Formats and Partial Coverage Lenses)

[Bill Owens]

Me too.  If Pentax were to spend a bit on marketing the *istD, it could
be a real winner.  Just the small size and AA battery use give it a big
advantage, IMNHO.

Bill


-Original Message-
From: Mark Roberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 12:28 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: *istD and the future (WAS: Re: Digital Formats and Partial
Coverage Lenses)


Pål Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>I'm afraid I'm not very optimistic regarding the *ist D's fate in the
>marketplace. There are three fundamental problems with the camera: 
>1) it is not entry level enough to make an impact. By this I mean it is

>just a "me too" compared to the D10 and the D100 and has no obvious 
>price advantage compared to those. It will face hard competition from 
>forthcoming, cheaper DSLR's. 2) Design. The *istD is ugly with no
design
>flair thats going to convince anyone. 

I got to use an *ist-D quite a bit last weekend and I disagree strongly
with both of those points.

-- 
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com

RE: Sobig F

[Amita Guha]

Yep, I've gotten attacked by it about 75 times. Update your antivirus
software and you'll be fine.

> -Original Message-
> From: Dr E D F Williams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 12:44 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Sobig F
> 
> 
> Over the last few days I've had a sixteen messages with this 
> damn thing attached. Most of them from Finland -- but a few 
> from other places.
> 
> Don
> ___
> Dr E D F Williams
> http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams
> Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery
> Updated: July 31, 2003
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: More serious competition for *ist-D - Kiss Digital/300D

[T Rittenhouse]

Why? Should Pentax drop the price on the MZ-S because the Rebel is cheaper?
Let me put it this way, Cotty, if I had the money to buy a DSLR (and I do
not merely mean if I could afford it, I mean if I could come up with the
money at all) I would buy the istD. If I had all the money in the world, I
would buy the 1DS, but short of that, I think the istD is best DSLR I have
handled. If you need image stablization, or your customers are going to be
impressed by a big camera, get a Canon 10D or up, but short of that the istD
wins hands down. You can not believe how nice it is until you handle it, and
the viewfinder is an order of magnitude better than Canon's postage stamp
looking one.

Ciao,
Graywolf
http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto


- Original Message -
From: "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Pentax List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 9:44 AM
Subject: Re: More serious competition for *ist-D - Kiss Digital/300D


> 
>
> Will Pentax drop the price a bit to respond?
>
>
> Cheers,
>   Cotty
>
>
> ___/\__
> ||   (O)   |  People, Places, Pastiche
> ||=|  www.macads.co.uk/snaps
> _
> Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.509 / Virus Database: 306 - Release Date: 8/12/03

Re: gfm

[T Rittenhouse]

AAA Map & Go shows about 740 miles and 14 hours. M&G is one of those maps
that shows the GFM entrance as being on the BRP (Blue Ridge Parkway). It is
not, it is 1 mile west of the BRP on US221.

Ciao,
Graywolf
http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto


- Original Message -
From: "Doug Franklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 9:00 AM
Subject: Re: gfm


> On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 08:32:35 -0400, Mark Roberts wrote:
>
> > http://www.grandfather.com/basic/directions.htm
> > Find Linville, North Carolina on a map or, better still, map software
> > and you'll be in the right neighborhood.
>
> Here's a link to it in MapQuest:
>
>
http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?address=2050%20Blowing%20Rock%20Highway
&city=Linville&state=NC&county=Avery&country=US
>
>
> TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
>
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.509 / Virus Database: 306 - Release Date: 8/12/03

Re: gfm

[T Rittenhouse]

Check out http://www.grandfather.com  The link to Basic info/trip planning
will give you lots of the information you want. I will get my Truckers Atlas
from the car and give you milage and possible routes via personal e-mail
later today. Note: both photo programs include the entrance fees.

Ciao,
Graywolf
http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto


- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 4:08 AM
Subject: RE: gfm


>   > > > How does one live during the gfm trips.Is it
> strictly a camping
> > > thing,tents etc.
> > > >
> > > > Dave
> >
> > The NPW is similar to the camera clinic in that there is a free buffet
> > on Saturday night and a reasonable breakfast buffet on Sunday morning.
> > The Camera clinic is basically one day, Saturday afternoon through about
> > noon on Sunday.  The NPW is from Friday afternoon until noonish Sunday.
> > The NPW fee includes admission to the mountain for 3 days ($12.00 per
> > adult per day regular price), one roll of slide film including
> > processing, entry to the contest, and lots of fun with PDML'ers and
> > others.  The auditorium seats 165 and when 165 folks have registered,
> > registration is closed.
> >
> > As Tom said, unless you camp, you miss out on some great fellowship and
> > beer drinking at PDML Central (photo here:
> > http://groups.msn.com/BillOwensPhotos/shoebox.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&Phot
> > oID=40 )
> >
> > Bill
> Thanks for the info guys.
> I don't know how doable this is for next year,but its something i'll keep
in mind.The
> SO has been bugging me for years to do a "real" vacation.Tent trailers are
available to
> rent,so ya never
> know.
> Bill,Tom or whom ever,can i get some more info about this.Like the
location of GFM,state
> etc.I'll do some
> investigating and see how it plays out.Dist from Toronto to GFM would be
what??
> You can contact me off list if need be.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.509 / Virus Database: 306 - Release Date: 8/12/03

Re: 300D

[Cotty]

According to http://www.warehouseexpress.com the UK price is £899 body
only, £999 with the new lens.

Personally I think the *ist D pricing has *got* to move a tad more in
that direction. Yes I know the 2 cameras are specced differently, but
it's the way these things are moving.


Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   |  People, Places, Pastiche
||=|  www.macads.co.uk/snaps
_
Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk

Re: *istD and the future (WAS: Re: Digital Formats and Partial Coverage Lenses)

[Alexandru-Cristian Sarbu]

Then what are the basis of those 20% ? A cheaper version? It would be
logical; I guess cheaper cameras sells in highest volume. An updated *istD?
I think they should move faster...

Alex Sarbu
- Original Message - 
From: "Pål Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 6:13 PM
Subject: Re: *istD and the future (WAS: Re: Digital Formats and Partial
Coverage Lenses)


> I wrote:
>
> >The *ist D will mainly sell to existing Pentax users, and that may well
be all Pentax is aiming for.
>
> Let me just add that I don't think it will flop (although the Sigma and
Contax has), but that it will not be instrumental in increasing Pentax
market share significantly (well, of course it could be argued that any
increase from 0% at present to whatever will be significant :o)  )
>
>
> Pål
>
>
>

Re: More serious competition for *ist-D - Kiss Digital/300D

[Blivit4]

Watching Pentax go after this DSLR market is like watching a Roadrunner cartoon. Canon 
is the Roadrunner and Pentax is the "day late and a dollar short" coyote. No, that's 
not right. Nikon is the coyote. Pentax is the cactus in the background.

Beep! Beep!

BR


Pål Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
>According to Pentax president, a novice DSLR will be in place before 2005. And a pro 
>model as well. My guess is that PMA 2004 could be interesting. If not then, certainly 
>at the Ulan Bator show.


__
McAfee VirusScan Online from the Netscape Network.
Comprehensive protection for your entire computer. Get your free trial today!
http://channels.netscape.com/ns/computing/mcafee/index.jsp?promo=393397

Get AOL Instant Messenger 5.1 free of charge.  Download Now!
http://aim.aol.com/aimnew/Aim/register.adp?promo=380455

Sobig F

[Dr E D F Williams]

Over the last few days I've had a sixteen messages with this damn thing
attached. Most of them from Finland -- but a few from other places.

Don
___
Dr E D F Williams
http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams
Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery
Updated: July 31, 2003

Re: Views on the F 70-210

[Familie Scheffler]

I like the bokeh definitely better on the SMC-M 4,5/80-200 (1st version)
than on the SMC-F 70-210. No sloppy feeling, of course. Stable image quality
throughout the range. You will have fun, Kostas.
Regards
Bernd
---original message-
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 22:24:54 +0100 (BST)
From: Kostas Kavoussanakis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Views on the F 70-210
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Tue, 19 Aug 2003, Mark Roberts wrote:

> "Robert & Leigh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Two shortcomings:
> >1) Sloppy MF feel.
> >2) Filter ring rotates making use of a circular polarizer challenging.
>
> I'll add a third shortcoming: Slow AF.
>
> But it's still an amazingly good lens. I'd say almost the equal of the
> legendary FA*80-200/2.8 and I've owned both.

How do these compare to the K/early M80-200/4.5 in terms of build and
optics?

Kostas (just bought one, you see :-)

--

Re: *istD and the future (WAS: Re: Digital Formats and Partial Coverage Lenses)

[T Rittenhouse]

I agree with Mark.

Ciao,
Graywolf
http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto


- Original Message -
From: "Mark Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 12:28 PM
Subject: Re: *istD and the future (WAS: Re: Digital Formats and Partial
Coverage Lenses)


> Pål Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >I'm afraid I'm not very optimistic regarding the *ist D's fate in the
> >marketplace. There are three fundamental problems with the camera:
> >1) it is not entry level enough to make an impact. By this I mean it is
> >just a "me too" compared to the D10 and the D100 and has no obvious
> >price advantage compared to those. It will face hard competition from
> >forthcoming, cheaper DSLR's. 2) Design. The *istD is ugly with no design
> >flair thats going to convince anyone.
>
> I got to use an *ist-D quite a bit last weekend and I disagree strongly
> with both of those points.
>
> --
> Mark Roberts
> Photography and writing
> www.robertstech.com
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.509 / Virus Database: 306 - Release Date: 8/12/03

Re: FS Prices

[T Rittenhouse]

The local Ritz (the only Camera Store in Boone), has nothing I want in the
store. The clerks know far less than I do about the products they sell. Why
should I give them my business?

There are always two sides to a story. I will pay a bit of a premium to walk
out of the store with the product, and to be able to exchange it without a
hassle if it turns out to be defective. I'll be damned if I would pay $100
though.

Ciao,
Graywolf
http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto



- Original Message -
From: "Lukasz Kacperczyk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 10:14 AM
Subject: Re: FS Prices


> > If I have any problem with it at all, all I need do is drive down the
> > street and talk to the nice gent behind the counter!
> >
> > I figure that's worth a pretty fair premium to be able to do that.
> >
> > In the end, I'll remember the store much longer than I'll remember the
> > extra money I paid to keep him in business...
>
> Hear, hear!
>
> Lukasz
>
> ===
> www.fotopolis.pl
>   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ===
>  internetowy magazyn o fotografii
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.509 / Virus Database: 306 - Release Date: 8/12/03

Re: *istD and the future (WAS: Re: Digital Formats and Partial Coverage Lenses)

[Pentxuser]

Pål I don't think you can ignore the people who have bought Pentax digital 
point and shoots. When you add them to the potential market for digital SLRs, 
your numbers go way up. I would hazard to guess that there are many people out 
there who have been impressed by their Optios and would like to upgrade. the 
istD is a natural path Obviously not the only path but a logical one...
Vic 


In a message dated 8/20/03 11:18:31 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

> wrote:
>
>
>
>>The *ist D will mainly sell to existing Pentax users, and that may well
>be all Pentax is aiming for. 
>
>
>
>Let me just add that I don't think it will flop (although the Sigma and
>Contax has), but that it will not be instrumental in increasing Pentax
>market share significantly (well, of course it could be argued that any
>increase from 0% at present to whatever will be significant :o)  )
>
>
>
>
>
>Pål
>
>

Re: *istD and the future (WAS: Re: Digital Formats and Partial Coverage Lenses)

[Mark Roberts]

Pål Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>I'm afraid I'm not very optimistic regarding the *ist D's fate in the 
>marketplace. There are three fundamental problems with the camera: 
>1) it is not entry level enough to make an impact. By this I mean it is 
>just a "me too" compared to the D10 and the D100 and has no obvious 
>price advantage compared to those. It will face hard competition from 
>forthcoming, cheaper DSLR's. 2) Design. The *istD is ugly with no design
>flair thats going to convince anyone. 

I got to use an *ist-D quite a bit last weekend and I disagree strongly
with both of those points.

-- 
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com

Re: Digital Formats and Partial Coverage Lenses

[T Rittenhouse]

Still this silliness. There is no resemblance (other than how all auto-focus
systems resemble each other) between the auto focus system of the istD and
the D100. Now, the not yet released multi-thousand-dollar D2H is supposed to
be very similar, and may well be licensed from Pentax.

Also, I have it on fairly good authority that the sensor in the istD is
purchased directly from Sony, thus that part of you idea is BS also.

Next, having handled a prototype istD, I can tell you that it out classes
the D100 every which way.

Yes, the replacement for the D100 may out class the istD (damn, I still hate
that name), but that is the norm for sex months of development in digital
cameras at this time. I expect the replacement for the istD to out class the
replacement for the D100.

And finally, the 300D appears to be the long rumored Digital Rebel. It is
well below the 10D, D100, S2, and istD in specs. Sure it will sell like hot
cakes, as does the Rebel. I think Pentax already has competition for it in
the works, and no doubt so does Nikon. The Sigma seems to already be there
at $1095. Most of these cameras are not really going to change the
respective companies market share. I believe they will all sell pretty much
proportionally to the current position of the company making them. Remember
Canon has more resorces to work with, and they are the only camera
manufacturer (other than Kodak) in the world that have their own fab.

Ciao,
Graywolf
http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto


- Original Message -
From: "whickersworld" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> I notice that you conveniently ignored the issues of
> non-disclosure and intellectual property that would have
> Nikon suing Pentax if there was no firm 'understanding'
> between the two companies and what you describe happened.
> Still, your selective reading of the facts to suit your
> preconceived opinions is one of the great joys of
> subscribing to this mailing list, so I thank you!
>
> > After all, Pentax *istD and the D100 compete head on with
> each other ad doesn't make any sense for any DSLR
> manufacturer to give the competition a "cheap camera" to
> sell.
>
> On the contrary, it makes *a lot* of sense.  If Nikon cannot
> sell enough D100 bodies to use up the contracted supply from
> Sony, it makes *enormous* sense to allow Pentax to use the
> surplus, saving Nikon's skin and allowing Pentax to offer a
> new DSLR with only minimal R&D.  Win-win!
>
> I am told that Nikon's D100 replacement is almost ready for
> testing, and it should be shipped late Q1/2004 or early
> Q2/2004.  Apparently, it is quite a remarkable camera and
> will be several steps ahead of the Pentax *ist D, which will
> therefore offer no competition.  In the meantime, Pentax
> buys Nikon's surplus Sony chips and all is well.  ;-)
>
> Nikon have no need to fear Pentax - or Minolta for that
> matter.  Their only real competition is Canon, and the EOS
> 300D announced today will make the Pentax *ist D look
> expensive, let alone the Nikon D100.  The timing of Canon's
> announcement, just at the point the *ist D is being shipped
> from Japan around the world, is unfortunate for Pentax, who
> looked to have stolen the march from Canon in terms of an
> affordable top brand DSLR.  Ah well.  :-(



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.509 / Virus Database: 306 - Release Date: 8/12/03

Re: *istD and the future (WAS: Re: Digital Formats and Partial Coverage Lenses)

[Pål Jensen]

I wrote:

>The *ist D will mainly sell to existing Pentax users, and that may well be all Pentax 
>is aiming for. 

Let me just add that I don't think it will flop (although the Sigma and Contax has), 
but that it will not be instrumental in increasing Pentax market share significantly 
(well, of course it could be argued that any increase from 0% at present to whatever 
will be significant :o)  )


Pål

Re: 300D

[Mark Roberts]

"Alexandru-Cristian Sarbu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>- Original Message - 
>From: "Mark Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> Rolf Brenner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >the 300D is there
>> >http://www.canon.co.jp/Imaging/eosdigital/index.html
>> >Regards Rolf
>>
>> Interesting. They've introduced a small-image-circle lens (18-55mm) for
>> the small sensor, but apparently they've made it so that the rear
>> elements protrude into the camera body, closer to the sensor than
>> standard Canon lenses (the EOS300D has a smaller mirror than standard
>> SLRs so it clears with no problem). This means that you can use standard
>> Canon lenses on the 300D but you can't use the cheapo zoom on other
>> Canon cameras - even, I assume, the 10D.

>I'm wonder if there is something to prevent the use of such lenses on other
>bodies (like 10D), or you'll damage the mirror trying? (they said nothing
>about 10D mirror, so I assume it won't work)

What's also interesting is that they're willing to move the lens
*closer* to the film plane. This surely wasn't done deliberately as a
jab at those who claim digital sensors won't work properly if the light
rays strike them at shallow angles, but I'll bet Canon's engineers are
having a chuckle at Kodak/Olympus' expense anyway.

-- 
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com

Re: Great book

[Eactivist]

>A friend of mine who knows nothing about photography gave me this book
for my birthday just because she liked the pictures! I haven't finished
it yet, but what I've read so far is fantastic

I've only read about 1/4-1/2 of the Inner Game, much is highly technical and 
over my head, but other stuff is sort of "mind set" stuff and well worth 
reading.

IMHO, Marnie aka Doe 

Re: More serious competition for *ist-D - Kiss Digital/300D

[Pål Jensen]

Mark wrote:

> Pentax will have to respond by building a *real* entry-level DSLR like
> the 300D. That'll happen in about a year, I'd guess.


According to Pentax president, a novice DSLR will be in place before 2005. And a pro 
model as well. My guess is that PMA 2004 could be interesting. If not then, certainly 
at the Ulan Bator show. 

Pål

*istD and the future (WAS: Re: Digital Formats and Partial Coverage Lenses)

[Pål Jensen]

Alex wrote:

I bet Pentax will sell every *istD they can make, even maybe if they price
it slightly higher. The main concern is if they can recover the R&D costs
(and make some profit) before replacing it (100D and 10D are older and sells
in higher volume). I'd really like to know how an *istD-like camera costs
(R&D+manufacturing)...
I'm optimist, however: I think Pentax will survive :-))


REPLY:
I'm afraid I'm not very optimistic regarding the *ist D's fate in the marketplace. 
There are three fundamental problems with the camera: 1) it is not entry level enough 
to make an impact. By this I mean it is just a "me too" compared to the D10 and the 
D100 and has no obvious price advantage compared to those. It will face hard 
competition from forthcoming, cheaper DSLR's. 2) Design. The *istD is ugly with no 
design flair thats going to convince anyone. It is not one of those hip digital 
products (like the Optio S) that sells on looks alone. Nor is it one of those classic 
great Pentax designs. It small size is not going to be seen as compelling enough for 
the majority of users. Small size works as selling argument when the products are 
"conceptually small" as well. The *ist D looks just like a shrinken big cameras 
whereas small slr's from the past had a "small look" like the OM series and Pentax 
M's. 3) Pentax brand image has deteriorated significantly during the last decade as 
the company have only been concerned about short term profit instead of innovation and 
long-term staying power. Pentax have deliberately traded marketshare for SLR's for 
profit. Its going to be hard to reestablish their former glory (20-30% market share). 
Also, Pentax lacks the compelling technology and perceived lens line-up completeness 
of the main competition (Minolta have announced USM lenses) and therefore will be seen 
as less desireable. The *ist D will mainly sell to existing Pentax users, and that may 
well be all Pentax is aiming for. 

However, there are some reasons for optimism. The rather ambitious goal of 20% 
marketshare for DSLR's, can only indicate that Pentax have a total revamp of their 
camera line-up's in store. At least if their claim is going to be taken even remotely 
serious. Pentax must at least be on equal term with the competition in technology and 
line-up in order to achieve such a goal. There will be four mayor player in the DSLR 
market by 2005. One of them will have the largest slice of the market (Canon). Hence, 
20% market share, which Pentax aims for, is a considerable share. The president of 
Pentax have quoted the last year of saying that company will make a new, more compact 
67 (it must, in my opinion, mean motorized film transport (and why not? the camera is 
totally battery dependent anyway) and quite possibly AF when their at it; a digital 
solution for the 645 system; and two additional (to the *istD) 35mm DSLR's - one 
novice model and a pro camera. Earlier it has been stated that Pentax will have three 
film slr's in the line-up as well and it now seems reasonable to assume  that they are 
siblings of the three DSLR's. Finally, the long awaited flagship is in the cards and 
before 2005 as well. 
I fell pretty confident that the latest modifications of the lens mount imply a change 
to USM AF system. Such a move sort of explains it all. If Pentax makes USM lenses 
there are no real reason not to not use the opportunity to change to a fully 
electronic lenses mount. After all, such lenses will be of limited use and value on 
older cameras anyway as their AF won't function. If such a move is in the plans, it 
follows that there are no real incentive to maintain backwards compatibility to lenses 
older than the "A" series in entry and mid level lenses when such compatibility is 
inevitably going to be absent in forthcoming high-end lenses. This is all speculation 
on my part, but this scenario explains both the Limited lenses and the MZ-S. 
Basically, they are stepping stone, or upgrade paths if you like, from older cameras 
and lenses to the forthcoming models. It is no coincidence, is suspect, that the 
Limiteds echo some of the "classic" K lenses incompatible with the *istD (and possibly 
forthcoming bodies). They provide and alternative that can be used on future bodies. 
The MZ-S provides a similar stepping stone in interface as it has a hybrid interface 
between LX-type and Z-1 type. It also has built and material quality more reminiscent 
of classic periods. A metal body, perhaps even weather sealed, could be expected for 
the pro body. 

Pål

Re: More serious competition for *ist-D - Kiss Digital/300D

[Heiko Hamann]

Hi whickersworld,

on 20 Aug 03 you wrote in pentax.list:

>I've been told a street price of Euro 1199 in mainland
>Europe, including sales tax at 14-16%, and would guess a US
>tax free street price of $999, although the list price will
>of course be higher.

It's even cheaper: the _MSRP_ is 1099,- Euro without lens, 1199,- with  
the new EF-S lens. That means, the street price will be below that...

Cheers, Heiko

Re: Unforgivably OT: Giant gerbils run riot in China

[Ann Sanfedele]

Simon King wrote:

> Ann Sanfedele wrote
> >PErhaps Simon will explain off list :)
> >annsan
>
> I did - I didn't want to go "into" it here :-)
> Simon

arrggh groan! :)
annsan

Re: Asahi Pentax Microscope Adapter II

[Dr E D F Williams]

Herb,

You put the adapter on the microscope tube. Then slip in an eyepiece. After
which you can screw the camera onto the adapter or fit a Mount Adapter K
first.

Don
___
Dr E D F Williams
http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams
Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery
Updated: July 31, 2003


- Original Message -
From: "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 5:32 PM
Subject: FS: Asahi Pentax Microscope Adapter II


> not your everyday item. screwmount microscope adapter for 25mm microscope
tubes and slightly smaller by adjusting clamp. complete retail box except
for manual. this has no optics. it is an adapter for positioning the camera
body in place of the eyepiece. it may work on a telescope too. should be
100% compatible with K mount adapter ring. make me a reaonable offer. Paypal
only. we can discuss shipping.
>
> Herb
>
>

Re: Digital Formats and Partial Coverage Lenses

[Mark Roberts]

"whickersworld" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>If Nikon cannot sell enough D100 bodies to use up the contracted 
>supply from Sony, 

At this point evidence suggests that the reverse is true; that chip
makers can't meet the demand from camera makers.

-- 
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com

Re: Unforgivably OT: Giant gerbils run riot in China

[frank theriault]

Yes, thanks, Simon, for your off-list directives.

I now recall having heard of this, shall we say, "alternative" use for
gerbils, although at 16 inches long, I wonder if the Chinese Gerbils
might not be very suitable for the Richard Gere usage.

Now I'm a bit worried as to why I hate gerbils as I do.  I keep thinking
that maybe something happened in my sleep, you know, the rodent version
of alien abductions?

I think I'll stop now.

cheers,
frank

Simon King wrote:

> Ann Sanfedele wrote
> >PErhaps Simon will explain off list :)
> >annsan
>
> I did - I didn't want to go "into" it here :-)
> Simon

--
"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The
pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert
Oppenheimer

Re: Unforgivably OT: Giant gerbils run riot in China

[frank theriault]

And, so he did.  Ewww!

cheers,
frank

Ann Sanfedele wrote:

> PErhaps Simon will explain off list :)
> annsan

--
"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The
pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert
Oppenheimer

Re: FS Prices

[Keith Whaley]

Stan Halpin wrote:
> 
[...]
> 
> A different analogy, closer to home. I bought an MZ-S from my local dealer
> for the MSRP, about $975 as I recall. Others at the time were buying from
> B&H for $795 or so. Doesn't mean that my dealer was charging "too much", or
> that I paid too much, just that I included different elements in my own
> "value" equation.

One more example?
I recently purchased a camera at my local camera store. A store that's
been there for a very long time.
I paid about $100 to $125 more than I could have got it for on eBay or
one of the web dealers.
That amounts to about 20% more than I could have got it elsewhere.
But, I partronize this store whenever I can to keep it in business and
have a local place to return the camera to, should anything heppen to it.
If I have any problem with it at all, all I need do is drive down the
street and talk to the nice gent behind the counter!

I figure that's worth a pretty fair premium to be able to do that.

In the end, I'll remember the store much longer than I'll remember the
extra money I paid to keep him in business...

keith whaley

Re: Puking Euphemisms (WAS: please comment)

[Anthony Farr]

How about "parking the tiger"?

Pardon my lateness, I'm just catching up after a dose of flu.  Well, not
exactly after but at least after the worst of it, I'm at 12 weeks in and the
clock's still running.  And yes, the worst of it did involve parking the
tiger a couple of times.

regards,
Anthony Farr

- Original Message - 
>
> Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 12:32:52 -0700
> From: Thomas Haller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Hey Steve!
>
> > "I've always liked the "blow chunks" euphemism."
> >
> DATBAR* in PDML tradition, I really get a kick out of many of the
> euphemisms...
>
> Calling Europe on the white phone... (very euphonic)
>
> Praying at the porcelain alter...  (sanctimonious)
>
> Praying to the Porcelain God...  (pagan)
>
> Ralphing...  (see Calling Europe...)
>
> Rainbow Yawn... (sixties style)
>
> Technicolor Yawn...  (eighties style)
>
> Driving the porcelain bus...
> Driving the white bus...  (blue collar)
>
> Whoops, I don't feel very good
>
> - THaller
>
>

RE: Unforgivably OT: Giant gerbils run riot in China

[Simon King]

Ann Sanfedele wrote
>PErhaps Simon will explain off list :)
>annsan

I did - I didn't want to go "into" it here :-)
Simon

Re: Views on the F 70-210

[Anthony Farr]

- Original Message - 
From: "Boris Liberman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, 19 August 2003 4:37 PM
Subject: Re: Views on the F 70-210


(snip)
> Still, I am curious - what is the difference then between F and FA
> lenses? Something to do with the way FA lenses "talk" to the camera
> body?
>
(snip)

Just guessing, but I think the FA series introduced MTF chips in the lenses,
which let the camera bodies know the optimum aperture value for the distance
focused.

regards,
Anthony Farr

Re: A test -- 'crossed nicols'

[Dr E D F Williams]

Robert and Dag,

Yes. Thanks. My question was aimed at getting some experimental results with
camera polarizers to decide if I could possibly get elliptically polarised
light *without* a 1/4 wave plate using a combination of plane and circular
polarizers for cameras. I'm trying to do the job on the cheap.

Going black is not what I expected either, that can't happen with circular
or elliptical polarization, as you clearly explain. By the way, I've never
found even the best quality plane polarizers (crossed) to  exclude *all* the
light -- they always let some through due to imperfections in manufacture I
guess. I suppose I'll just have to try it out and see what happens. I'll
post pictures of the results.

Don
___
Dr E D F Williams
http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams
Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery
Updated: July 31, 2003


- Original Message -
From: "Robert Szasz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 10:40 AM
Subject: Re: A test -- 'crossed nicols'


> http://panda.unm.edu/courses/finley/P262/CircPolar2/CircPolar2.html
> If you can get a quarter wave plate you can create diffrent ammounts of
> ellipitality by varying the fast axis of the plate with the polarization
> axis on a linear polarizer, 45deg creates circularly polarized light (well
> depending on the freq it will vary in ellipicality).
>
> On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, Dr E D F Williams wrote:
>
> > Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 10:22:50 +0300
> > From: Dr E D F Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: A test -- 'crossed nicols'
> > Resent-Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 03:23:04 -0400
> > Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > That's just what I was trying to find out. Special polarizers for
> > microscopes cost and awful lot and I want to try a circular polarizer to
see
> > if it will approximate the behaviour of a very expensive elliptical
> > polarizer. Lamda plates also cost at least one arm and leg and I'm
thinking
> > about what I can do in that case as well. Even a simple 1/4 wave plate,
once
> > available for the Zeiss range of instruments -- it went into the filter
> > holder under the condenser -- was expensive.
> >
> > Don
> > ___
> > Dr E D F Williams
> > http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams
> > Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery
> > Updated: July 31, 2003
> >
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Robert Szasz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 10:11 AM
> > Subject: Re: A test -- 'crossed nicols'
> >
> >
> > > From my knowledge of how a circular polarizer works you will get a 3db
> > >  loss for every re linerazation (every polarization after the 1/4 wave
> > > plate). Two circular polarizers (any positions)therfore would cut the
> > > amount of light recieved in half (assuming perfect rejection of the
> > > perpendicular polarization). If you place a linear polarizer in front
of a
> > > circular polarizer it will act just like two linear polarizers, but
the
> > > light after the 1/4 wave plate in the circular polarizer will be
> > > circularly polarized (either right or left handed depending on the way
> > > the polarizer was constructed))
> > >
> > > On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, Dr E D F Williams wrote:
> > >
> > > > Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 08:34:05 +0300
> > > > From: Dr E D F Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > Subject: A test -- 'crossed nicols'
> > > > Resent-Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 01:34:17 -0400
> > > > Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >
> > > > If anyone has two circular polarizers I'd be grateful if you would
> > perform a
> > > > test. Put one over the other and rotate to see if the field becomes
> > > > completely dark when they are crossed. And ... if you also have an
ordin
> > ary
> > > > polarizer try the same experiment using one normal and one circular
> > > > polarizer.
> > > >
> > > > Don
> > > > ___
> > > > Dr E D F Williams
> > > > http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams
> > > > Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery
> > > > Updated: July 31, 2003
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>

Re: Views on the F 70-210

[Anthony Farr]

Boris,

Sorry to dissapoint, but this lens lacks an "A" position.  The logic in its
omission is that the soft effect changes with aperture so Pentax thought it
undesirable to use program or Tv mode.  The lens's contemporary camera
bodies could do Av or metered manual without the "A" setting, and body
control of aperture was at the time unforeseen.

Sometime soon I really must get down to a store with my own F85 Soft and see
how an *ist regards it, because even though it lacks an "A" button on the
aperture ring it has "A" contacts on its mount.  Because of its vintage its
aperture actuating lever should have true linear proportionality (which does
not exist on pre-A series lenses).

IMO Pentax should retrofit these lenses with an "A" type aperture ring at a
nominal cost, because they were so recently made.  In fact the FA version
was only dropped from the current lens list immediately before the *ist
became available, and was outwardly identical except for the colour of the
finish (black vs slate grey), was optically identical, and AFAIK only
differed in having an MTF chip fitted.

regards,
Anthony Farr

- Original Message - 
From: "Boris Liberman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


> Hi!
>
> On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 22:24:25 -0600
>   "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Any post M series lens has the A position. This includes A series, F
> >series and FA series lenses.
> >
> >William Robb
>
> I see. Well, I did not know that. But then I suppose it means that my
> soon to arrive F 85/2.8 soft would have A position too. That's way
> cool.
>
> Still, I am curious - what is the difference then between F and FA
> lenses? Something to do with the way FA lenses "talk" to the camera
> body?
>
> I am sorry I am taking this subject off-track, but I hope noone is
> offended.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Boris
>

Re: Scotland pics up

[Cotty]

>> Scotland as you've never seen it, featuring Jostein, Mike W, Gianfranco
>> and a cast of thousands.




>> Cheers,
>>   Cotty
>>
>
>Clearly the major problem with these pages  & pics is the shear 
>_number_ of them. When you hit the last photo on that last page you 
>suddenly discover you've run out of essay before you've run out of 
>interest.
>
>Very nice work Cotty.
>
>Dan Scott

Hi Dan,

I think I can safely say that's the greatest compliment I could hope to
expect. Many thanks for taking the time.




Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   |  People, Places, Pastiche
||=|  www.macads.co.uk/snaps
_
Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk

RE: gfm

[Cotty]

>You see that blue thing? It's full of beer.

And that white thing on the roof is where they keep the Alka-Seltzer.




Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   |  People, Places, Pastiche
||=|  www.macads.co.uk/snaps
_
Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk

New toy

[Boris Liberman]

Hi!

Well, it is my time to announce a new toy . Yesterday my F 
85/2.8 soft has arrived. Now I hope that portraits of our lovely 
daughter would be even better .

Naturally, I cannot just post a message and not ask a question. 
Apparently the screwdriver of my ZX-L had a little dust around it. You 
know, slightly less than 1.5 years of usage without cleaning. This 
caused some strange effects in AF behavior with rather heavy above 
lens. Having cleaned it solved the issue for a time being.

Now, here's my question. What kind of routine procedure I could do 
__without__ submitting my camera to service in order to keep it clean? 
I never touched anything on the mount except lens release button. 
Well, I blew some dust off the focusing screen one few rare ocassions, 
but this does not count. 

Thanks!

P.S. Half the film is already shot with this wonderful lens. PUG, I am 
coming ...

_
Супер ДЖИНC!!! Сроки действия больше не действуют. http://www.jeans.mts.ru

300D

[Rolf Brenner]

the 300D is there
http://www.canon.co.jp/Imaging/eosdigital/index.html
Regards Rolf

Re: A test -- 'crossed nicols'

[dagt]

Remember that the difference between an ordinary and a circular polarizor is that a 
circular polarizor "depolarises" the light after filtering out light being polarized 
in one direction (well, actually it converts linear polarized light into circular 
polarized light - thus the name).  

Therefore two circular polarizors in a series will not be able to "go black", as two 
linear polarizors do.  

If you use one of both you have to place the linear polarizor in front of the circular 
polarizor, not the other way around.

DagT

> Fra: "Dr E D F Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> If anyone has two circular polarizers I'd be grateful if you would perform a
> test. Put one over the other and rotate to see if the field becomes
> completely dark when they are crossed. And ... if you also have an ordinary
> polarizer try the same experiment using one normal and one circular
> polarizer.
> 
> Don
> ___
> Dr E D F Williams
> http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams
> Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery
> Updated: July 31, 2003
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: A test -- 'crossed nicols'

[Robert Szasz]

http://panda.unm.edu/courses/finley/P262/CircPolar2/CircPolar2.html
If you can get a quarter wave plate you can create diffrent ammounts of
ellipitality by varying the fast axis of the plate with the polarization
axis on a linear polarizer, 45deg creates circularly polarized light (well
depending on the freq it will vary in ellipicality).

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, Dr E D F Williams wrote:

> Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 10:22:50 +0300
> From: Dr E D F Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: A test -- 'crossed nicols'
> Resent-Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 03:23:04 -0400
> Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> That's just what I was trying to find out. Special polarizers for
> microscopes cost and awful lot and I want to try a circular polarizer to see
> if it will approximate the behaviour of a very expensive elliptical
> polarizer. Lamda plates also cost at least one arm and leg and I'm thinking
> about what I can do in that case as well. Even a simple 1/4 wave plate, once
> available for the Zeiss range of instruments -- it went into the filter
> holder under the condenser -- was expensive.
>
> Don
> ___
> Dr E D F Williams
> http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams
> Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery
> Updated: July 31, 2003
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Robert Szasz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 10:11 AM
> Subject: Re: A test -- 'crossed nicols'
>
>
> > From my knowledge of how a circular polarizer works you will get a 3db
> >  loss for every re linerazation (every polarization after the 1/4 wave
> > plate). Two circular polarizers (any positions)therfore would cut the
> > amount of light recieved in half (assuming perfect rejection of the
> > perpendicular polarization). If you place a linear polarizer in front of a
> > circular polarizer it will act just like two linear polarizers, but the
> > light after the 1/4 wave plate in the circular polarizer will be
> > circularly polarized (either right or left handed depending on the way
> > the polarizer was constructed))
> >
> > On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, Dr E D F Williams wrote:
> >
> > > Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 08:34:05 +0300
> > > From: Dr E D F Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Subject: A test -- 'crossed nicols'
> > > Resent-Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 01:34:17 -0400
> > > Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > > If anyone has two circular polarizers I'd be grateful if you would
> perform a
> > > test. Put one over the other and rotate to see if the field becomes
> > > completely dark when they are crossed. And ... if you also have an ordin
> ary
> > > polarizer try the same experiment using one normal and one circular
> > > polarizer.
> > >
> > > Don
> > > ___
> > > Dr E D F Williams
> > > http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams
> > > Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery
> > > Updated: July 31, 2003
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>

Re: A test -- 'crossed nicols'

[Dr E D F Williams]

That's just what I was trying to find out. Special polarizers for
microscopes cost and awful lot and I want to try a circular polarizer to see
if it will approximate the behaviour of a very expensive elliptical
polarizer. Lamda plates also cost at least one arm and leg and I'm thinking
about what I can do in that case as well. Even a simple 1/4 wave plate, once
available for the Zeiss range of instruments -- it went into the filter
holder under the condenser -- was expensive.

Don
___
Dr E D F Williams
http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams
Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery
Updated: July 31, 2003


- Original Message -
From: "Robert Szasz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 10:11 AM
Subject: Re: A test -- 'crossed nicols'


> From my knowledge of how a circular polarizer works you will get a 3db
>  loss for every re linerazation (every polarization after the 1/4 wave
> plate). Two circular polarizers (any positions)therfore would cut the
> amount of light recieved in half (assuming perfect rejection of the
> perpendicular polarization). If you place a linear polarizer in front of a
> circular polarizer it will act just like two linear polarizers, but the
> light after the 1/4 wave plate in the circular polarizer will be
> circularly polarized (either right or left handed depending on the way
> the polarizer was constructed))
>
> On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, Dr E D F Williams wrote:
>
> > Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 08:34:05 +0300
> > From: Dr E D F Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: A test -- 'crossed nicols'
> > Resent-Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 01:34:17 -0400
> > Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > If anyone has two circular polarizers I'd be grateful if you would
perform a
> > test. Put one over the other and rotate to see if the field becomes
> > completely dark when they are crossed. And ... if you also have an ordin
ary
> > polarizer try the same experiment using one normal and one circular
> > polarizer.
> >
> > Don
> > ___
> > Dr E D F Williams
> > http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams
> > Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery
> > Updated: July 31, 2003
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Re: A test -- 'crossed nicols'

[Robert Szasz]

>From my knowledge of how a circular polarizer works you will get a 3db
 loss for every re linerazation (every polarization after the 1/4 wave
plate). Two circular polarizers (any positions)therfore would cut the
amount of light recieved in half (assuming perfect rejection of the
perpendicular polarization). If you place a linear polarizer in front of a
circular polarizer it will act just like two linear polarizers, but the
light after the 1/4 wave plate in the circular polarizer will be
circularly polarized (either right or left handed depending on the way
the polarizer was constructed))

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, Dr E D F Williams wrote:

> Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 08:34:05 +0300
> From: Dr E D F Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: A test -- 'crossed nicols'
> Resent-Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 01:34:17 -0400
> Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> If anyone has two circular polarizers I'd be grateful if you would perform a
> test. Put one over the other and rotate to see if the field becomes
> completely dark when they are crossed. And ... if you also have an ordinary
> polarizer try the same experiment using one normal and one circular
> polarizer.
>
> Don
> ___
> Dr E D F Williams
> http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams
> Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery
> Updated: July 31, 2003
>
>
>
>