Re: green button wars (again)
On Sep 19, 2005, at 8:32 PM, J. C. O'Connell wrote: YOUR spamming- please stop posting posts with absolutely no relevant content to the list... P.S. havent you got anything better to do that count my posts and report to the list? that's sad... What I'm posting is extremely relevant to the list: I'm pointing out how much email bandwidth is being wasted with these inane diatribes of yours. We're long since moved past sensible discussion of the topic and gotten into religion now. It's a tough job but somebody has to do it. I'll accept the burden for the good of the PDML community. :-) Godfrey
RE: George's potty stop deconstructed
As usual in these cases, he was back in the government faster than you can say 'revolving door'. There is now speculation that he will soon return as Home Secretary (Minister of the Interior). He was the most illiberal, authoritarian Home Secretary I can remember. For the sake of administrative convenience, hiding behind the terrorism threat, he is prepared in a moment to sign away the rights and freedoms for which generations have fought over hundreds of years. So naturally Blair wants him back. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4521577.stm -- Cheers, Bob -Original Message- From: Jack Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 20 September 2005 02:16 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: George's potty stop deconstructed http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4099581.stm --- P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't know, apparently he was forced out of government over some scandal.
Re: Rename request
In a message dated 9/19/2005 7:55:04 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You must not have had the pleasure of owning and using these K/M lenses and are playing some selfish game where you think your $5 savings is more important than continued support of perfectly working excellently designed and manufactured lenses costing much more than the entire body let alone the $5 part needed to support them fully. == What I can't understand is why you are so incensed. Are you stuck with a bunch of K/M lenses that you can't sell? And do you really believe that constantly complaining here will make Pentax change anything? Marnie aka Doe :-)
PESO: Others 2005 - 37p - GDG
A view of Arundel Castle: http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW5/37p.htm Comments and critique always appreciated. enjoy Godfrey
Re: green button wars (again)
It's a tough job but somebody has to do it. I'll accept the burden for the good of the PDML community. :-) Way to take one for the team, Godfrey. (: Personally, I'm tired of his close-minded, self-righteous ballyhooing. Lucky for him I'm not a moderator, or I would have taken the hint from the screw mount community and kicked him out. John Celio -- http://www.neovenator.com AIM: Neopifex Hey, I'm an artist. I can do whatever I want and pretend I'm making a statement.
Re: green button wars (again)
On 19/9/05, J. C. O'Connell, discombobulated, unleashed: P.S. havent you got anything better to do that count my posts and report to the list? Godders, the man *has* a point ;-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: green button wars (again)
On 19/9/05, John Francis, discombobulated, unleashed: Once the ordure came into contact with the rotational air circulating device they screamed for help from the engineers, who were able to come up with a reasonable workaround. What, and they didn't see it coming? Come on John, companies that actually stay in business just don't do things like that. It's not being cynical, it's just covering your bases Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Camera engineering (was Re: Rename request)
We know that Pentax have lost one sale, so far. Not a lot, really. And all they have lost is the sale of a body. It is quite clear that the person in question won't buy another lens if he lives for four hundred years. I'd love to know what car /cart he drives, and I'm surprised his old Apple II can manage to access the Internet. His clothes must look a bit ragged as well. But he's absolutely right to insist that things work for ever. Change is such a difficult thing to handle. He makes the Amish look positively groovy. John On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 06:27:22 +0100, Mark Erickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: J. C. O'Connell wrote: see my last post, engineering dollars? that cam sensor was engineered 35 years ago dude. Do you even know what we are talking about here? Its ONE pot with three wires on it read by a single A./D channel? That's freakin' childs play. Yes, the actual part is insignificant $, and most of the RD is already paid for. I say most because each camera has pretty much its own unique firmware, so there is a piece of firmware (and RD) that has to be added to every camera mode in order to support this. But this small delta cascades in many directions, i.e. in the user manual, it has to be documented, I already mentioned the firmware, the chip has to have that extra A/D channel you are talking about or you need a different more powerful (more expensive) chip, the support of that extra A/D channel plus voltage to the pot requires more power, hence reduced battery life, more wiring, a place on the circuit board to accept the wiring, hence requiring more space, more testing to make sure the firmware works in all the different modes, more testing to make sure the aperture simulator works, etc., etc. the list goes on I'm sure. Exactly. In addition, you can divide the costs into two parts: NRE (non-recurring engineering, which is done once per model type and not once per unit manufactured), and per-unit costs due to parts, assembly, and testing. Even if the per-unit costs are zero (i.e., the additional parts and manufacturing are free), it may not be worthwhile to add a feature if the development costs cannot be recovered via additional sales. My guess is that the number of people who refuse to buy a Pentax DSLR because of their lack of support for K/M lenses is not that big. What are the NRE costs involved in including full K/M compatibility in a camera? I don't know. I'm not a high-volume digital camera engineer. Anyone here with manufacturing engineering background care to actually make some estimates? Say in the number of engineering hours, broken down into design, development, integration, and test? Anyone care to estimate the number of lost sales of *istD and *istDs cameras due to limited K/M support? 100 cameras? 1000? 1 million? --Mark -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.1/104 - Release Date: 16/09/2005
Re: Interior photography and the *istD
On 19/9/05, Scott Loveless, discombobulated, unleashed: If the job pans out AARGH :-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: green button wars (again)
In a message dated 9/19/2005 8:21:42 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Count: 78 green button messages from JCO in 27 hours. Bloody slacker. That's only three per hour. He needs better spam- generating software. Godfrey = I am tired of this, so I am going to say something. Against my better judgment. Look, Godfrey, you're not helping anything with this stuff. Not one bit. I would like some people to cool it. (Yes, him too.) But you are also included on my please-knock-it-off list with your constant jabbing. (And a few others are included on that part of my list too.) Most people will quiet down if they feel they have been heard and not just totally discounted. Unless, that is, they have lost all perspective. And if they have, that is another problem. So...let's cool our jets. And can't we all just get along? Marnie aka Doe ;-)
Re: green button wars (again)
In a message dated 9/20/2005 12:28:24 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What, and they didn't see it coming? Come on John, companies that actually stay in business just don't do things like that. It's not being cynical, it's just covering your bases Cheers, Cotty - Agreed. I still think you nailed it, Cotty. Like MS. It's not a bug, it's a feature. Hehehehe. Marnie aka Doe
Re: Rename request
On 19/9/05, J. C. O'Connell, discombobulated, unleashed: Now do you get it? Plain and clear this end! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
PESO: Blue Flower Macro
Been meaning to post this for a while: http://www.neovenator.com/special/flower-2-big.html and a very tight crop, just for fun: http://www.neovenator.com/special/flower_detail.html I shot this with my MX while my D was out for repair. The flower itself is no more than an inch and a half across, petal tip to petal tip. To get this shot, I used a Sigma 28-80 macro lens at 1:2 macro (kit lens, but surprisingly good), three extension tubes, and an old Pentax Bellows (extended almost all the way out). The tiniest motion of the flower would knock it out of the frame, or at least out of focus, and a slight breeze kept coming and going while I was shooting. It was quite a challenge to get this, but a lot of fun, too. I think I was shooting Fuji Sensia 200, but it could have been Kodak E100, I'm just not sure. John Celio -- http://www.neovenator.com AIM: Neopifex Hey, I'm an artist. I can do whatever I want and pretend I'm making a statement.
Re: PESO - On a stick
In a message dated 9/19/2005 7:48:27 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This particular cattail was intriguing because it looked so much like a hot dog to me. Pentax *istD, K 200/2.5, Handheld ISO 200, 1/1000 sec http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/bkd_2173.htm Comments welcome -- Bruce == Wow. Really nice, Bruce. I saw some cattails today and was wondering how to photograph them. That never occurred to me. Really, really nice. Marnie aka Doe
Re: Camera engineering (was Re: Rename request)
On 20/9/05, John Forbes, discombobulated, unleashed: He makes the Amish look positively groovy. Mark! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Re: green button wars (again)
From: John Celio [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2005/09/20 Tue AM 07:23:11 GMT To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: green button wars (again) It's a tough job but somebody has to do it. I'll accept the burden for the good of the PDML community. :-) Way to take one for the team, Godfrey. (: Personally, I'm tired of his close-minded, self-righteous ballyhooing. Lucky for him I'm not a moderator, or I would have taken the hint from the screw mount community and kicked him out. I must be just as out of step, then. It seems to me that he's making a perfectly valid point (albeit forcefully, which is understandable given the repeated stating of what he deems to be wrong and the immediate mockery of his position) about the construction of a camera. His extrapolation of that into a future policy is supposition and am less inclined to agree with him. But I accept fully that it is a possibility. Time will tell and I am perfectly happy to wait. If I never buy another camera, I won't starve, freeze or be otherwise discomfited. If the time comes that I cannot use what I have already then I will simply stop. My best pictures are between my ears anyway and I can see those any time I want. mike Hey, I'm an artist. I can do whatever I want and pretend I'm making a statement. - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Re: PESO: Blue Flower Macro
In a message dated 9/20/2005 12:39:17 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Been meaning to post this for a while: http://www.neovenator.com/special/flower-2-big.html and a very tight crop, just for fun: http://www.neovenator.com/special/flower_detail.html I shot this with my MX while my D was out for repair. The flower itself is no more than an inch and a half across, petal tip to petal tip. To get this shot, I used a Sigma 28-80 macro lens at 1:2 macro (kit lens, but surprisingly good), three extension tubes, and an old Pentax Bellows (extended almost all the way out). The tiniest motion of the flower would knock it out of the frame, or at least out of focus, and a slight breeze kept coming and going while I was shooting. It was quite a challenge to get this, but a lot of fun, too. I think I was shooting Fuji Sensia 200, but it could have been Kodak E100, I'm just not sure. John Celio == Whoa second macro is really close. I like one better. The second really needs more DOF. The first could use a little more too, but it's okay. Nice. Yes, I have a great deal of trouble photographing flowers myself because of wind. Marnie aka Doe
Re: How Pentax Could Survive (was:Re: Pentax K 2.5/200mm)
Thank God for that. Then perhaps you can move on from your obsession with Pentax's financial downfall. One down, one to go. John On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 01:56:18 +0100, Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: unless it is available in 2 weeks, it's too late. Herb... - Original Message - From: Tom Reese [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Monday, September 19, 2005 8:21 AM Subject: Re: How Pentax Could Survive (was:Re: Pentax K 2.5/200mm) I think you'll have your opportunity soon enough. -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.3/106 - Release Date: 19/09/2005
Re: OT: Batch Image Rotation Thumbnail Creation
In a message dated 9/19/2005 4:38:31 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Several people have recommended IrfanView. They're right :-) Lots of other free stuff out there, too: http://www.robertstech.com/pixel/software.htm -- Mark Roberts Hey, nice page, Mark! Very handy dandy. I've bookmarked it. Thanks, Marnie
Re: PESO: Portrait of Leah
On 9/19/05, Fred Widall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks for all the comments - good to see such a level of unanimity on the list for once VBG I was trying for the supermodel/barbie look but guess I overdid things. Funnily enough Leah thought it was a beautiful image, ah well. This means that she's not only a beautiful woman, but also a charitable one, LOL To be serious, I like the polished skin of the modified one, but I have to agree with the others, you did overdo it... Skin tone is not the one of an healty girl... (then, though, my monitor is a chep LCD un-calibrated, I'm at work, I must code with it, not look at pictures... wait... my boss is coming..., ?php echo hello world; ? ;) danilo
Re: more green button wars
And if Pentax don't sell more lenses, they'll go to the wall. Very clever. John On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 03:39:14 +0100, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: EXCUSE ME, arent you forgetting one little thingy? PENTAX CANT SELL MORE NEW REPLACEMENT LENSES if they support the K/Ms - that’s why it was left out, not because nobody wanted it...You are naïve if you really believe they left it out because nobody really needed or wanted it. There is no other logical reason to leave this cheap part out other than to disable the functions of earlier lenses in order to boost sales of new ones to replace the disabled older ones.jco -Original Message- From: Adam Maas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 19, 2005 10:24 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: more green button wars Pentax brought the Green Button fix to satisfy a loud minority of users who were complaining. If it had been a majority, the DS would have gotten the hardware necessary instead of continuing with the software fix. Pentax isn't stupid. But they don't agree with you either. The people complaining about the lack of hardware are a minority amongst the old K/M users, who are already a minority amongst Pentax's market. If it was otherwise, we'd have the hardware, because it would be worth implementing to Pentax if a large minority or majority of the market required it. As it is, it's not worth it to Pentax to make the changes. -Adam J. C. O'Connell wrote: Get out of here with this stuff. You think the pentax DS did or didn't have the K/M hardware integrated because of the population/market size of these lenses in the field ? What makes you say that, there was so much backlash that pentax had to come up with the green button band-aid right away to stop the bleeding... jco -Original Message- From: Adam Maas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 19, 2005 9:57 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: more green button wars Simple. Most of those truckloads of lenses are sitting at the back of a closet collecting dust, and much of the ones in current use are 50mm's on a school's K1000's. If there was a large market for K/M lens users going digital, the DS would have had the hardware integrated. There's just enough market (or at least complaining) for Pentax to keep with the kludge they're currently using. Same reason why Nikon's dumped that compatibility on it's low/mid range digitals. No real market for it. -Adam Mishka wrote: now that's just plain... strange comment. what exactly would be the reason preventing the owners of the aforementioned truckloads of K/M lenses looking to buy into Digital (or DigitaL)? mishka On 9/19/05, Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: While the lenses do exist, the number of owners looking to buy into Digital or modern film are a fairly small fraction of the current market. Barely worth supporting, and not worth the extra engineering required to integrate the extra functionality into the design (Hardware is always harder to integrate than firmware, hence the firmware fix). -Adam -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.1/104 - Release Date: 16/09/2005 -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.3/106 - Release Date: 19/09/2005
Re: illogical
lol, there are times I wonder why I am still subscribed to this list (I use no pentax gear anymore, sad but true). Then threads like this remind me the reasons why... cheers, Danilo
Re: Rename request
This posts brings an old story to mind. Proud mother, who has just watched her son marching in his first parade: They was all out of step except our Freddy! John On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 03:13:25 +0100, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For your information it was the spotmatic list and the moderator admitted that he really had no reason to kick me whatsoever, its just that due to the incredible amount of blatantly wrong posts and misconceptions by the posters there who didn't like being told the truth constantly by me and they felt I was a problem for them, I guess I was because they must have been quite embarassed by some of the things they found out were all wrong, but I had to comment because some things were actual purchase recommendations - VERY BAD WRONG recommendations that needed to be set straight I suggest you contact the moderater and question HIS actions , not mine because the moderator was also involved in the wrong end of some of the discussions. Now do you get it? JCO -Original Message- From: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 19, 2005 9:40 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Rename request he dropped out of the Nak Talk mailing list too, whether willingly or not, because of the same things. Herb... - Original Message - From: Bob Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Monday, September 19, 2005 8:35 PM Subject: Re: Rename request Brian, JCO was on the Yahoo Pentax Screwmount Lens list until last week. It's a moderated list and the moderator threw him off for repeating similar behavior to what he exhibits here. Obviously, he needed a place to go, so we got him. Perhaps if we all wrote to the other list moderator, they would take him back? -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.3/106 - Release Date: 19/09/2005
Re: Rename request
Yes, this isn't the first time he's made a complete fool of himself on this list. John On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 04:10:43 +0100, P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: JCO is one of the old timers here. Bob Sullivan wrote: Brian, JCO was on the Yahoo Pentax Screwmount Lens list until last week. It's a moderated list and the moderator threw him off for repeating similar behavior to what he exhibits here. Obviously, he needed a place to go, so we got him. Perhaps if we all wrote to the other list moderator, they would take him back? Regards, Bob S. On 9/19/05, Brian Dipert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear list manager, Please consider renaming this list to the jc_and_pj-discuss list. Because, clearly, these two individuals feel they're entitled to dominate it with their long-repeated, long-winded, business-naive and tiresome opinions. You might have a mass unsubscribe exodus if you do, but perhaps you're already experiencing this, and anyway the new name would more accurately reflect what this list has unfortunately become in recent days. Exhibit A: I am not going to move on until the posts which incorrectly explain why this was done cease. I am not bringing it up over and over again, I am just explaining why these wrong reasons used in some arguments by those who don't agree are wrong. If you don't agree fine, I can accept that but if your argument explaining why you don't agree is flawed or false I am going to rebut it. That's all why do we have to forcefully move on? Threads die all by themselves == Brian Dipert Senior Technical Editor: Mass Storage, Multimedia (audio, displays, 2-D and 3-D graphics, and still and video imaging), PC Core Logic and Peripherals EDN Magazine: http://www.edn.com My blog: http://www.edn.com/blog/40040.html 5000 V Street Sacramento, CA 95817 (916) 760-0159, fax (781) 734-8038 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit me at http://www.bdipert.com -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.3/106 - Release Date: 19/09/2005
Re: Rename request
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 05:58:45 +0100, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ...I have got better things to do than waste big time on things like thatSorry I cant accommodate you but it isnt going to change... Mark! John -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.3/106 - Release Date: 19/09/2005
Re: PESO: Blue Flower Macro
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 08:44:02 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, I have a great deal of trouble photographing flowers myself because of wind. Marnie aka Doe Lots of us have this problem, and not just with flowers or photography! John -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.3/106 - Release Date: 19/09/2005
Re: PESO: Others 2005 - 37p - GDG
In a message dated 9/20/2005 12:20:36 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: A view of Arundel Castle: http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW5/37p.htm Comments and critique always appreciated. enjoy Godfrey = That's nice. No criticisms. Marnie aka Doe :-) Though seeing color from you is a bit strange.
Re: GESO: A few pics from Zoom Gallery
In a message dated 9/18/2005 4:12:39 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I suspect this never made it to the list. I never saw it. If it's a dupe, please accept my apologies. Fridayt saw another gallery crawl in Birmingham, Michigan. The gallery that has been showing some of my work was on the tour, so they asked me to come in and do some meet and greet. A jazz band parked out in front, and we had a good turnout. Lots of fun. [snip] http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=528625 == Some very nice stuff here, Paul. Crisp, clear, well-composed. That appears to be a nice lens. And, whew, no cars! (I am not a car aficionado :-)) Hard to pick out the one I like best because I like most of them. Wtg. Marnie aka Doe
Re: PESO: Others 2005 - 37p - GDG
This looks rather artificial to me, Godfrey. John On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 08:19:19 +0100, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A view of Arundel Castle: http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW5/37p.htm Comments and critique always appreciated. enjoy Godfrey -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.3/106 - Release Date: 19/09/2005
istDS Exposure Problems
I seem to recall some people saying that, when using manual exposure, and/or manual focus lenses, the DS (and maybe the D as well) has had some exposure problems. Today the DS was sporting a K28/3.5 - as manual as you can get - and I was making a few exposures of some wooden bears on a friend's deck. The camera was set at the same aperture, shutter speed, and ISO for both of these shots, made within a minute of each other. The pics were saved directly from an unadjusted PEF file. I think you should be able to see the EXIF info with various software and viewers. IAC, both were shot @ 200 ISO, 1/200 sec, and @ F8.0 http://home.earthlink.net/~scbelinkoff/IMGP0280.jpg http://home.earthlink.net/~scbelinkoff/IMGP0281.jpg What gives? Shel Am I paranoid or perceptive?
istDS Exposure Problems
I seem to recall some people saying that, when using manual exposure, and/or manual focus lenses, the DS (and maybe the D as well) has had some exposure problems. Today the DS was sporting a K28/3.5 - as manual as you can get - and I was making a few exposures of some wooden bears on a friend's deck. The camera was set at the same aperture, shutter speed, and ISO for both of these shots, made within a minute of each other. The pics were saved directly from an unadjusted PEF file. I think you should be able to see the EXIF info with various software and viewers. IAC, both were shot @ 200 ISO, 1/200 sec, and @ F8.0 http://home.earthlink.net/~scbelinkoff/IMGP0280.jpg http://home.earthlink.net/~scbelinkoff/IMGP0281.jpg What gives? Shel Am I paranoid or perceptive? Shel Am I paranoid or perceptive?
Re: istDS Exposure Problems
From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2005/09/20 Tue AM 08:11:01 GMT To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: istDS Exposure Problems I seem to recall some people saying that, when using manual exposure, and/or manual focus lenses, the DS (and maybe the D as well) has had some exposure problems. Today the DS was sporting a K28/3.5 - as manual as you can get - and I was making a few exposures of some wooden bears on a friend's deck. The camera was set at the same aperture, shutter speed, and ISO for both of these shots, made within a minute of each other. The pics were saved directly from an unadjusted PEF file. I think you should be able to see the EXIF info with various software and viewers. IAC, both were shot @ 200 ISO, 1/200 sec, and @ F8.0 http://home.earthlink.net/~scbelinkoff/IMGP0280.jpg http://home.earthlink.net/~scbelinkoff/IMGP0281.jpg What gives? Well, the camera _knew_ that you had made one exposure for the shadows, so it made the next one, which it _knew_ was the same subject from the pattern on the sensor, for the highlights. Welcome to robocamworld. Ain't it just peachy? I don't know whether to 8-) or 8-( Shel Am I paranoid or perceptive? - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Re: green button wars (again)
between April and June 2005, KM sold 10K, Nikon sold 330K, Olympus sold 40K, Pentax sold 20K, and Canon sold 500K DSLRs. everyone else was enough under 10K not to matter. Herb... - Original Message - From: Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Monday, September 19, 2005 10:40 PM Subject: Re: green button wars (again) There simply aren't enough film SLR users out there to drive the sales numbers Nikon and Canon are seeing. Remember that the low-end Nikons and Rebels are selling around 100,000 units a month. You think there are enough film SLR users out there to drive 200,000 units a month in sales
Re: PESO: Blue Flower Macro
I like the wider version. Nicely composed with pleasing colors. With the focal point on the tips of the stamen, the limited DOF works well here. I would clone out the other petal or leaf that's visible between two petals at lower right to preserve the geometry of the composition. But then again, I do stuff like that:-). Good job. On Sep 20, 2005, at 3:38 AM, John Celio wrote: Been meaning to post this for a while: http://www.neovenator.com/special/flower-2-big.html and a very tight crop, just for fun: http://www.neovenator.com/special/flower_detail.html I shot this with my MX while my D was out for repair. The flower itself is no more than an inch and a half across, petal tip to petal tip. To get this shot, I used a Sigma 28-80 macro lens at 1:2 macro (kit lens, but surprisingly good), three extension tubes, and an old Pentax Bellows (extended almost all the way out). The tiniest motion of the flower would knock it out of the frame, or at least out of focus, and a slight breeze kept coming and going while I was shooting. It was quite a challenge to get this, but a lot of fun, too. I think I was shooting Fuji Sensia 200, but it could have been Kodak E100, I'm just not sure. John Celio -- http://www.neovenator.com AIM: Neopifex Hey, I'm an artist. I can do whatever I want and pretend I'm making a statement.
Re: Pentax K 2.5/200mm
Zeiss and Voigtlander can appeal to the retro market as they have done in the past. they will release new film cameras with small changes from their basic chassis. most of the differences will be cosmetic. Herb... - Original Message - From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Monday, September 19, 2005 10:33 PM Subject: Re: Pentax K 2.5/200mm I would be surprised if we see another new film camera from Nikon. Leica, perhaps if they manage to stay in business. Wouldn't know about the other two.
Re: green button wars (again)
since it is on a tripod, one handed makes little difference. Herb... - Original Message - From: P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Monday, September 19, 2005 11:15 PM Subject: Re: green button wars (again) For you maybe, I find I'm a lot steadier if I hold the camera properly.
Re: Camera engineering (was Re: Rename request)
given that Pentax hopes to sell 120K DSLRs this fiscal year, all of which are low profit margin, what do you think? Herb... - Original Message - From: Mark Erickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'pentax-discuss' pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 1:27 AM Subject: Camera engineering (was Re: Rename request) Anyone here with manufacturing engineering background care to actually make some estimates? Say in the number of engineering hours, broken down into design, development, integration, and test? Anyone care to estimate the number of lost sales of *istD and *istDs cameras due to limited K/M support? 100 cameras? 1000? 1 million?
Re: istDS Exposure Problems
It's probably a hiccup. The only possible logical explanation would be the slight reframing could change exposure if you were using the spot meter. I've had that happen to me. But I've also encountered situations where my *istD just seemed to get confused and go slightly bonkers. Might you have been using the spot meter? Paul On Sep 20, 2005, at 6:12 AM, mike wilson wrote: From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2005/09/20 Tue AM 08:11:01 GMT To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: istDS Exposure Problems I seem to recall some people saying that, when using manual exposure, and/or manual focus lenses, the DS (and maybe the D as well) has had some exposure problems. Today the DS was sporting a K28/3.5 - as manual as you can get - and I was making a few exposures of some wooden bears on a friend's deck. The camera was set at the same aperture, shutter speed, and ISO for both of these shots, made within a minute of each other. The pics were saved directly from an unadjusted PEF file. I think you should be able to see the EXIF info with various software and viewers. IAC, both were shot @ 200 ISO, 1/200 sec, and @ F8.0 http://home.earthlink.net/~scbelinkoff/IMGP0280.jpg http://home.earthlink.net/~scbelinkoff/IMGP0281.jpg What gives? Well, the camera _knew_ that you had made one exposure for the shadows, so it made the next one, which it _knew_ was the same subject from the pattern on the sensor, for the highlights. Welcome to robocamworld. Ain't it just peachy? I don't know whether to 8-) or 8-( Shel Am I paranoid or perceptive? - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Re: Rename request
and irrelevant. that is the part he doesn't get. Herb - Original Message - From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax list pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 3:34 AM Subject: Re: Rename request On 19/9/05, J. C. O'Connell, discombobulated, unleashed: Now do you get it? Plain and clear this end!
Re: istDS Exposure Problems
It looks rather as though the aperture didn't stop down fully. Sticky? John On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 11:12:50 +0100, mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2005/09/20 Tue AM 08:11:01 GMT To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: istDS Exposure Problems I seem to recall some people saying that, when using manual exposure, and/or manual focus lenses, the DS (and maybe the D as well) has had some exposure problems. Today the DS was sporting a K28/3.5 - as manual as you can get - and I was making a few exposures of some wooden bears on a friend's deck. The camera was set at the same aperture, shutter speed, and ISO for both of these shots, made within a minute of each other. The pics were saved directly from an unadjusted PEF file. I think you should be able to see the EXIF info with various software and viewers. IAC, both were shot @ 200 ISO, 1/200 sec, and @ F8.0 http://home.earthlink.net/~scbelinkoff/IMGP0280.jpg http://home.earthlink.net/~scbelinkoff/IMGP0281.jpg What gives? Well, the camera _knew_ that you had made one exposure for the shadows, so it made the next one, which it _knew_ was the same subject from the pattern on the sensor, for the highlights. Welcome to robocamworld. Ain't it just peachy? I don't know whether to 8-) or 8-( Shel Am I paranoid or perceptive? - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.3/106 - Release Date: 19/09/2005
Re: Interior photography and the *istD
On 9/20/05, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 19/9/05, Scott Loveless, discombobulated, unleashed: If the job pans out AARGH :-) HAHA! -- Scott Loveless http://www.twosixteen.com -- You have to hold the button down -Arnold Newman
Re: How Pentax Could Survive (was:Re: Pentax K 2.5/200mm)
you haven't figured it out yet, my position represents the same as that of people who manage hundreds of millions of dollars of Pentax stock. Pentax's camera business is in serious trouble, not the company. if Pentax pulls out of the camera business, then all the money have i have put into Pentax dead-ends. if they want to stay in the camera business they have to do much better than they are doing now. Olympus and Konica Minolta are in the same boat. those are the major players. Fuji is one of the minor players also in the same boat. these are just the DSLR manufacturers. this coming year is it. anyone who is not profitable in the digital camera game by 1Q 2006 isn't ever going to be. most camera companies didn't make their 1H fiscal 2005 sales figures, some by significant amounts but haven't lowered their YE 2005 forecasts. everyone is counting on a large 2H gain. keeping a division running that always loses money and has not hope of making any is really stupid. Herb - Original Message - From: John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 3:48 AM Subject: Re: How Pentax Could Survive (was:Re: Pentax K 2.5/200mm) Thank God for that. Then perhaps you can move on from your obsession with Pentax's financial downfall.
Re: istDS Exposure Problems
No metering, Paul. It was all in manual. Camera in Manual mode (M on the dial), aperture set manually, shutter speed set manually. Shel Am I paranoid or perceptive? [Original Message] From: Paul Stenquist It's probably a hiccup. The only possible logical explanation would be the slight reframing could change exposure if you were using the spot meter. I've had that happen to me. But I've also encountered situations where my *istD just seemed to get confused and go slightly bonkers. Might you have been using the spot meter? http://home.earthlink.net/~scbelinkoff/IMGP0280.jpg http://home.earthlink.net/~scbelinkoff/IMGP0281.jpg What gives?
Re: istDS Exposure Problems
Of course. That's a logical explanation. Paul On Sep 20, 2005, at 6:44 AM, John Forbes wrote: It looks rather as though the aperture didn't stop down fully. Sticky? John On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 11:12:50 +0100, mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2005/09/20 Tue AM 08:11:01 GMT To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: istDS Exposure Problems I seem to recall some people saying that, when using manual exposure, and/or manual focus lenses, the DS (and maybe the D as well) has had some exposure problems. Today the DS was sporting a K28/3.5 - as manual as you can get - and I was making a few exposures of some wooden bears on a friend's deck. The camera was set at the same aperture, shutter speed, and ISO for both of these shots, made within a minute of each other. The pics were saved directly from an unadjusted PEF file. I think you should be able to see the EXIF info with various software and viewers. IAC, both were shot @ 200 ISO, 1/200 sec, and @ F8.0 http://home.earthlink.net/~scbelinkoff/IMGP0280.jpg http://home.earthlink.net/~scbelinkoff/IMGP0281.jpg What gives? Well, the camera _knew_ that you had made one exposure for the shadows, so it made the next one, which it _knew_ was the same subject from the pattern on the sensor, for the highlights. Welcome to robocamworld. Ain't it just peachy? I don't know whether to 8-) or 8-( Shel Am I paranoid or perceptive? - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.3/106 - Release Date: 19/09/2005
Re: istDS Exposure Problems
Hi John, Not that I can tell, but I did exercise the lens for about 100 cycles after seeing this just to be sure. The aperture is certainly working fine now. My concern isn't so much that the lens may be at fault so much as that there may be some odd behavior that's an issue with these cameras. Shel Am I paranoid or perceptive? [Original Message] From: John Forbes It looks rather as though the aperture didn't stop down fully. Sticky? were shot @ 200 ISO, 1/200 sec, and @ F8.0 http://home.earthlink.net/~scbelinkoff/IMGP0280.jpg http://home.earthlink.net/~scbelinkoff/IMGP0281.jpg
Re: istDS Exposure Problems
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005, mike wilson wrote: From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2005/09/20 Tue AM 08:11:01 GMT To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: istDS Exposure Problems The camera was set at the same aperture, shutter speed, and ISO for both of these shots, made within a minute of each other. Well, the camera _knew_ that you had made one exposure for the shadows, so it made the next one, which it _knew_ was the same subject from the pattern on the sensor, for the highlights. Welcome to robocamworld. Ain't it just peachy? I don't know whether to 8-) or 8-( Err, same aperture, shutter and ISO, what robo*? Sticky aperture or (I doubt it) dramatic light change. Kostas
Re: How Pentax Could Survive (was:Re: Pentax K 2.5/200mm)
why? please enlight. what's gonna happen @Q1 2006 or shortly thereafter? mishka On 9/20/05, Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: it. anyone who is not profitable in the digital camera game by 1Q 2006 isn't ever going to be.
Re: Pentax K 2.5/200mm
most were surprised to see F6 from Nikon and Ikon from Zeiss too. so? life is full of surprises. mishka On 9/19/05, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would be surprised if we see another new film camera from Nikon. Leica, perhaps if they manage to stay in business. Wouldn't know about the other two. On Sep 19, 2005, at 9:30 PM, Mishka wrote: you mean, no one in 35mm, except nikon, zeiss, voigtlaender and leica? if so, i think i agree. mishka On 9/18/05, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No one is going to make any new film cameras. If Pentax promised more film cameras, you can't blame them for backing down on that one.
Re: How Pentax Could Survive (was:Re: Pentax K 2.5/200mm)
Herb, You are a photographer. You know less than nothing about finance, or about marketing, or about how large corporations operate. You read a few handouts and come on here posturing as an expert on Pentax and the business world in general. As you yourself concede, Pentax as a company makes money. What you haven't cottoned onto is the value that the company attaches to the brand name, which may well cause them to stay in the camera business just to keep the name in the public eye. What you also know absolutely nothing about is the manner in which companies cost the different parts of their business, and how they choose to release this information to the public. You don't have the first idea how well or badly the imaging business is doing. What Pentax choose to tell the public may be completely different from the underlying reality, and if you were an accountant you would know that there is no single version of the underlying reality. But what really irritates me about you is your obsession with trawling the net to find bad news about Pentax and then reporting it here. You are even worse than that other obsessive idiot, JCO, because he restricts himself to periodic apoplectic outbursts, whereas you are a constant thorn in the flesh, like Chinese water torture. And the worst of it is, it's so self-defeating. If you spent a tenth of the time that you spend denigrating Pentax on promoting the company, you might help it to sell more products and thus stay in business and perhaps make the bodies you want. As it is, your wholly negative and destructive attitude is designed to do the opposite. You are a sad and unpleasant person, and I wish you would go away, or at least restrict your contribution to subjects you know something about. Photography, for instance. John On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 11:49:43 +0100, Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: you haven't figured it out yet, my position represents the same as that of people who manage hundreds of millions of dollars of Pentax stock. Pentax's camera business is in serious trouble, not the company. if Pentax pulls out of the camera business, then all the money have i have put into Pentax dead-ends. if they want to stay in the camera business they have to do much better than they are doing now. Olympus and Konica Minolta are in the same boat. those are the major players. Fuji is one of the minor players also in the same boat. these are just the DSLR manufacturers. this coming year is it. anyone who is not profitable in the digital camera game by 1Q 2006 isn't ever going to be. most camera companies didn't make their 1H fiscal 2005 sales figures, some by significant amounts but haven't lowered their YE 2005 forecasts. everyone is counting on a large 2H gain. keeping a division running that always loses money and has not hope of making any is really stupid. Herb - Original Message - From: John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 3:48 AM Subject: Re: How Pentax Could Survive (was:Re: Pentax K 2.5/200mm) Thank God for that. Then perhaps you can move on from your obsession with Pentax's financial downfall. -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.3/106 - Release Date: 19/09/2005
Re: Pentax K 2.5/200mm
my point was, they released new (and in Zeiss case, designed from the scratch) film cameras when the film is dead was pretty much a given. i am not sure exactly what's the deep meaning of that, except that, maybe, they know something we don't? like, how to make money staying in camera business? mishka On 9/20/05, Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Zeiss and Voigtlander can appeal to the retro market as they have done in the past. they will release new film cameras with small changes from their basic chassis. most of the differences will be cosmetic. Herb... - Original Message - From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Monday, September 19, 2005 10:33 PM Subject: Re: Pentax K 2.5/200mm I would be surprised if we see another new film camera from Nikon. Leica, perhaps if they manage to stay in business. Wouldn't know about the other two.
Re: istDS Exposure Problems
Shel, The simple explanation is usually the one to go for. The aperture is set by the lens. The camera's only input is to activate the stop down lever, and I would guess that that is something that either works or it doesn't. The camera of course has to fire the shutter at the correct speed, and I would think that an intermittent problem here in such a well-tested and common mechanism is rather unlikely. Again, these tend either to work properly or not at all. So, in my view, and assuming it's not a sudden light shift, as Kostas suggested, it comes down to the lens. You exercised it AFTER the event, so it's working properly now, but it might not have been when you took the picture. John On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 12:05:30 +0100, Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi John, Not that I can tell, but I did exercise the lens for about 100 cycles after seeing this just to be sure. The aperture is certainly working fine now. My concern isn't so much that the lens may be at fault so much as that there may be some odd behavior that's an issue with these cameras. Shel Am I paranoid or perceptive? [Original Message] From: John Forbes It looks rather as though the aperture didn't stop down fully. Sticky? were shot @ 200 ISO, 1/200 sec, and @ F8.0 http://home.earthlink.net/~scbelinkoff/IMGP0280.jpg http://home.earthlink.net/~scbelinkoff/IMGP0281.jpg -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.3/106 - Release Date: 19/09/2005
Re: istDS Exposure Problems
I'm starting to think that it may have been a sticky aperture. However, I'm going to pay careful attention to the situation over the next few days. I just made about seventy shots with the aperture fully open, and didn't see any exposure differences.Thanks! Shel Am I paranoid or perceptive? [Original Message] From: Kostas Kavoussanakis Err, same aperture, shutter and ISO, what robo*? Sticky aperture or (I doubt it) dramatic light change.
Re: Camera engineering (was Re: Rename request)
Mark Erickson wrote: [ ... ] s Anyone here with manufacturing engineering background care to actually make some estimates? Say in the number of engineering hours, broken down into design, development, integration, and test? I guess I have *some* relevant experience, but I don't think I want to try to give you any figures (but what I can say is that you must always remember to multiply the numbers you do get by 2/3pi ;-)) What you've got to remember, though, is that we're talking about an existing, well tested component and engineers that (presumably) have a lot of experience in integrating that component into similar units. This *significantly* reduces the number of hours needed. Anyone care to estimate the number of lost sales of *istD and *istDs cameras due to limited K/M support? 100 cameras? 1000? 1 million? That's also hard to say, of course. I think the real question is how much being able to say Pentax is the (only) camera company that offers full compatibility between lenses and bodies is worth in marketing terms. And, I guess also how much weaker they have made that argument by putting themselves in a position where they have to include a note saying usable with limitations in their brochures. That's all there is to it, isn't it? - T
Re: Pentax K 2.5/200mm
We'll be even more surprised to see any more Nikons, but if there are, they'll be very expensive, and hand-built to order. Same with Zeiss. John On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 12:17:48 +0100, Mishka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: most were surprised to see F6 from Nikon and Ikon from Zeiss too. so? life is full of surprises. mishka On 9/19/05, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would be surprised if we see another new film camera from Nikon. Leica, perhaps if they manage to stay in business. Wouldn't know about the other two. On Sep 19, 2005, at 9:30 PM, Mishka wrote: you mean, no one in 35mm, except nikon, zeiss, voigtlaender and leica? if so, i think i agree. mishka On 9/18/05, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No one is going to make any new film cameras. If Pentax promised more film cameras, you can't blame them for backing down on that one. -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.3/106 - Release Date: 19/09/2005
Re: PAW: Chinatown Abstract
Don't worry Frank. You didn't sound artsy at all. Overblown pretentious well... VBG BTW. After initially looking at it, it didn't do anything form me. After your explanation I had another look, and I can see where your coming from, but it still doesn't do anything for me. I quite often like blurry abstract shots, but they need some kind of strong graphic element. This shot just doesn't have anything that grabs my imagination. Dave On 9/19/05, frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip The reason I don't like talking like that, is that I hate sounding overblown, pretentious and all artsy about it - especially since it really is just a blurry photo. snip It just is what it is. cheers, frnk -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- Dave
Re: istDS Exposure Problems
I agree and no, it was not a sudden change in the light. I'm gonna go for the simple explanation for the time being ;-)) Thanks! Shel Am I paranoid or perceptive? [Original Message] From: John Forbes The simple explanation is usually the one to go for. The aperture is set by the lens. The camera's only input is to activate the stop down lever, and I would guess that that is something that either works or it doesn't. The camera of course has to fire the shutter at the correct speed, and I would think that an intermittent problem here in such a well-tested and common mechanism is rather unlikely. Again, these tend either to work properly or not at all. So, in my view, and assuming it's not a sudden light shift, as Kostas suggested, it comes down to the lens. You exercised it AFTER the event, so it's working properly now, but it might not have been when you took the picture.
Re: Re: istDS Exposure Problems
From: Kostas Kavoussanakis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2005/09/20 Tue AM 11:13:53 GMT To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: istDS Exposure Problems On Tue, 20 Sep 2005, mike wilson wrote: From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2005/09/20 Tue AM 08:11:01 GMT To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: istDS Exposure Problems The camera was set at the same aperture, shutter speed, and ISO for both of these shots, made within a minute of each other. Well, the camera _knew_ that you had made one exposure for the shadows, so it made the next one, which it _knew_ was the same subject from the pattern on the sensor, for the highlights. Welcome to robocamworld. Ain't it just peachy? I don't know whether to 8-) or 8-( Err, same aperture, shutter and ISO, what robo*? Sticky aperture or (I doubt it) dramatic light change. Just because it _says_ on the dial that it is in manual mode, doesn't necessarily mean that it _is_ in manual mode. These cameras are as intelligent as some photographers. It was meant as a joke but my sense of humour is not the same as most peoples'. The obvious answer is that there was some diaphragm malfunction, like maybe the coupling not being properly engaged. mike - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Re: PESO: Others 2005 - 37p - GDG
Sorry Godfrey, this, IMO, just doesn't seem to be up to your usual standard. It looks a bit flat, and at this size not particularly sharp. Dave On 9/20/05, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A view of Arundel Castle: http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW5/37p.htm Comments and critique always appreciated. enjoy Godfrey -- Dave
Re: Interior photography and the *istD
Scott Loveless [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I may have a line on a job taking photographs for a company that does interior and exterior work for real estate companies. While I don't know the details of said work just yet, I do know that they provide those interior panoramas that are quite popular with online real estate listings. If the job pans out I'm considering purchasing an *istD or DS. Was wondering if any of you might have an opinion on which lenses might be most useful in that situation? My first thoughts were to get the widest lens I could find, but after looking at some of the wonderful landscape panoramas stitched together by Mark I'm not sure that a super wide angle lens would be absolutely necessary. Any thoughts? If (and only if) you need to make large prints then stitching is the way to go: With care taken in taking the original shots and the use of dedicated stitching software like PanoramaMaker, it's much faster and easier than most people think. If it's for online use only, (and it sounds from your description as if that's the case) you won't need the high resolution of multi-image stitching - just go with a top-quality rectilinear wide angle. In short: Get yourself an ist-D or DS2 and the recent Pentax 14mm prime. :) -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Re: How Pentax Could Survive (was:Re: Pentax K 2.5/200mm)
From: John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2005/09/20 Tue AM 11:20:47 GMT To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: How Pentax Could Survive (was:Re: Pentax K 2.5/200mm) Herb, You are a photographer. You know less than nothing about finance, or about marketing, or about how large corporations operate. You read a few handouts and come on here posturing as an expert on Pentax and the business world in general. You alright, John? You've been laying about yourself like Thor with a particularly vicious hangover for the last two days. Not your usual self at all. m - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Re: Re: istDS Exposure Problems
From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2005/09/20 Tue AM 11:32:27 GMT To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: istDS Exposure Problems I'm starting to think that it may have been a sticky aperture. However, I'm going to pay careful attention to the situation over the next few days. I just made about seventy shots with the aperture fully open, and didn't see any exposure differences.Thanks! Don't you need to do the same with the aperture at least partially closed? Shel Am I paranoid or perceptive? [Original Message] From: Kostas Kavoussanakis Err, same aperture, shutter and ISO, what robo*? Sticky aperture or (I doubt it) dramatic light change. - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Re: George's potty stop deconstructed
Jack Davis wrote: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4099581.stm And, in all the new news about his leaving office, not a sentence about the food and lodging fiasco he so blithely perpetrated! Is all that forgotten so quickly? Seems so... keith
Re: How Pentax Could Survive (was:Re: Pentax K 2.5/200mm)
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005, John Forbes wrote: bodies you want. As it is, your wholly negative and destructive attitude is designed to do the opposite. You are a sad and unpleasant person, and I wish you would go away, or at least restrict your contribution to subjects you know something about. Photography, for instance. OTOH, I read Herb's dg text and take it with a pinch of salt, as a true Med should do. While his projections hopefully won't happen, noone else ever posts any such data, and I am quite appreciative of that. Can you accommodate my idiocy in your ideal pdml, please? Kostas
Re: Re: istDS Exposure Problems
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005, mike wilson wrote: From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2005/09/20 Tue AM 11:32:27 GMT To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: istDS Exposure Problems I'm starting to think that it may have been a sticky aperture. However, I'm going to pay careful attention to the situation over the next few days. I just made about seventy shots with the aperture fully open, and didn't see any exposure differences.Thanks! Don't you need to do the same with the aperture at least partially closed? I think he is eliminating the aperture so as to test the camera. Kostas
Re: Re: istDS Exposure Problems
I wanted to eliminate the aperture from the equation, Mike, and see if it was something within the camera. After your comment I did the test again with the aperture @ F8.0. Exposures were erratic. I guess the lens needs a CLA :-(( Thanks to all for your suggestions. Shel [Original Message] From: mike wilson Don't you need to do the same with the aperture at least partially closed?
Re: illogical
It's threads like this that make the PDML interesting. Dave On 9/20/05, danilo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: lol, there are times I wonder why I am still subscribed to this list (I use no pentax gear anymore, sad but true). Then threads like this remind me the reasons why... cheers, Danilo
Re: Re: istDS Exposure Problems
From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2005/09/20 Tue PM 12:01:40 GMT To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Re: istDS Exposure Problems I wanted to eliminate the aperture from the equation, Mike, and see if it was something within the camera. After your comment I did the test again with the aperture @ F8.0. Exposures were erratic. I guess the lens needs a CLA :-(( Thanks to all for your suggestions. Shel Are you sure that the respective levers are connecting properly? I remember someone having a problem like this and finding that the aperture closing lever was catching or not engaging with the body lever properly. A slight adjustment and it was sorted. m [Original Message] From: mike wilson Don't you need to do the same with the aperture at least partially closed? - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Re: How Pentax Could Survive (was:Re: Pentax K 2.5/200mm)
if Pentax pulls out of the camera business, then all the money have i have put into Pentax dead-ends. Well. I've got a Bronica SQ-A with a very good PS 40mm, PS 180mm and an OK 80mm and some more equipment. The lenses were bought new, so they represent a large investment for me. Now Bronica (actually Tamron) is out of the MF business, but I still can't see the problem. I've delivered 6 b/w 120-films today, and I expect the pictures to be just as good (or bad) as they were before. If something goes wrong Bronica has promised to maintain repairs for the system for 10 years (they have to because of some consumer protecting laws in this part of the world), and if they can't the prices for excellent used equipment is low. So, if this happens to Pentax I will use the equipment I have until it is unrepairable and falls apart. This is a long time and until then I can take pictures just the same way as before. So, what's the problem? Sure, it would be sad but it's not the end of the world. DagT fra: Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] you haven't figured it out yet, my position represents the same as that of people who manage hundreds of millions of dollars of Pentax stock. Pentax's camera business is in serious trouble, not the company. if Pentax pulls out of the camera business, then all the money have i have put into Pentax dead-ends. if they want to stay in the camera business they have to do much better than they are doing now. Olympus and Konica Minolta are in the same boat. those are the major players. Fuji is one of the minor players also in the same boat. these are just the DSLR manufacturers. this coming year is it. anyone who is not profitable in the digital camera game by 1Q 2006 isn't ever going to be. most camera companies didn't make their 1H fiscal 2005 sales figures, some by significant amounts but haven't lowered their YE 2005 forecasts. everyone is counting on a large 2H gain. keeping a division running that always loses money and has not hope of making any is really stupid. Herb - Original Message - From: John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 3:48 AM Subject: Re: How Pentax Could Survive (was:Re: Pentax K 2.5/200mm) Thank God for that. Then perhaps you can move on from your obsession with Pentax's financial downfall.
Re: Camera engineering (was Re: Rename request)
Mark Erickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anyone here with manufacturing engineering background care to actually make some estimates? Say in the number of engineering hours, broken down into design, development, integration, and test? I have a little background in this area, having worked in the Components Engineering department for an electronics manufacturer. I won't give exact estimates but I will say that anyone who's never worked in the business has no idea how zealously cost reduction is pursued. The design engineers count every part that goes on a circuit board, regardless of cost, and strive to reduce the number of part placements (even though these placements are performed by lightning-fast robotic equipment). Every part placement contributes just a fraction of a cent to overall cost, but it's counted. Selection of the parts themselves is scrutinized thoroughly. I had a friend who was a sales rep for HP Semiconductor (before it was spun off to become Agilent Semiconductor... and when they still *had* field sales reps) who told me that a *half cent* per component price difference could decide whether he won or lost a bid. In addition to the cost of the part itself, there are also any other parts associated with it. One voltage regulator I.C. might require three external resistors and two capacitors to function, while another may require six resistors and one capacitor. So besides considering which I.C. is cheaper, they figure in the cost of the external components. Capacitors are generally cheaper than resistors, but the cost varies with value so the one that requires two capacitors *may* still be cheaper... for some designs, but not necessarily for others. Then the cost of the extra component placement is figured in. Components that have to be hand-placed are anathema: Any engineer who puts one in his design will have to justify it to high levels of management. Trim potentiometers are to be avoided if at all possible. Potentiometers and electromechanical devices in general are to be avoided wherever possible. (Simply from a manufacturing standpoint, I have concluded that the existence of the potentiometer alone in the old Pentax K-mount makes its return in the 21st century a complete non-starter: You can stick a fork in it, it's done.) The scary part to me is that the company I worked for was in a much less competitive business segment than mass-market consumer goods (they enjoyed profit margins on each product that Pentax, Canon, Nikon can only *dream* of). In Asian electronics manufacturing plants I have no doubt that they're even more fanatical than the environment in which I worked. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
RE: Re: istDS Exposure Problems
Hi Shel, To test the aperture mechanism, stop the lens all the way down, hold the aperture open with your finger via the lever on the back of the lens, wait a few minutes and then release the lever as fast as you can while looking thru then lens. The blades should close _way_ faster than your finger can move. Repeat several times and I'll bet you'll see variations. Putting it in the fridge for a while will probably make the variations more obvious. Remember, it's the fast closing part that counts, it has all the time in the world to open back up. You can always send it to Don's house of lens repair if you need to. ;-) Don (I _don't_ do zooms!) ;-( -Original Message- From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 7:02 AM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Re: istDS Exposure Problems I wanted to eliminate the aperture from the equation, Mike, and see if it was something within the camera. After your comment I did the test again with the aperture @ F8.0. Exposures were erratic. I guess the lens needs a CLA :-(( Thanks to all for your suggestions. Shel [Original Message] From: mike wilson Don't you need to do the same with the aperture at least partially closed?
RE: Re: istDS Exposure Problems
Mike makes a good point, I've had a couple lenses that the lever was bent out slightly and rubbed on the lens mount. Look for slight rub marks on the wide side of the lever. Don -Original Message- From: mike wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 7:15 AM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Re: istDS Exposure Problems From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2005/09/20 Tue PM 12:01:40 GMT To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Re: istDS Exposure Problems I wanted to eliminate the aperture from the equation, Mike, and see if it was something within the camera. After your comment I did the test again with the aperture @ F8.0. Exposures were erratic. I guess the lens needs a CLA :-(( Thanks to all for your suggestions. Shel Are you sure that the respective levers are connecting properly? I remember someone having a problem like this and finding that the aperture closing lever was catching or not engaging with the body lever properly. A slight adjustment and it was sorted. m [Original Message] From: mike wilson Don't you need to do the same with the aperture at least partially closed? - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
RE: Camera engineering (was Re: Rename request)
You don't need to be a camera engineer to see that in the overall cost of designing and building these cameras that this INCREDIBLY simple and cheap part removal COULD NOT result in any signifigant cost savings due to the much more massive engineering costs required for the rest of the camera and also the much much higher overall parts costs. This cheapo part was in ALL Pentax cameras for over 20 years even real cheap bottom line models where the entire complex camera sold for $150 so for you to say that unless youre a camera cost engineer theres no way to estimate maximum cost savings is not being very observative. Secondly, the whole product support issue seems to be lost on you. Its not a simple matter of how many new units will or wont sell without a given part in it. It a matter of continued support of legacy products whenever possible within reasonable or no costs. And in my opinion, my strong opionion, it is NOT a reasonable decision to cripple the K/M lenses at this time because of this dirt cheap parts removal from a $600 plus camera unless there is another model that does support it and there isnt... Thirdly, If Pentax starts blatantly screwing their former customers, even very recent ones, then HOW MUCH is that going to cost the company in lost sales in ALL THEIR PRODUCTS when former customers just jump ship and go with Canon who has more selection of both bodies and lenses. the only reason to stick with pentax was the compatabiliy issues which are worthless if the support is removed by $5 parts which have nothing to do with compatability whatsoever...Lost sales means lower production means HIGHER production costs per unit means removing $5 parts today can make the same camera $50 more expensive in a few years... jco -Original Message- From: Mark Erickson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 1:27 AM To: 'pentax-discuss' Subject: Camera engineering (was Re: Rename request) J. C. O'Connell wrote: see my last post, engineering dollars? that cam sensor was engineered 35 years ago dude. Do you even know what we are talking about here? Its ONE pot with three wires on it read by a single A./D channel? That's freakin' childs play. Yes, the actual part is insignificant $, and most of the RD is already paid for. I say most because each camera has pretty much its own unique firmware, so there is a piece of firmware (and RD) that has to be added to every camera mode in order to support this. But this small delta cascades in many directions, i.e. in the user manual, it has to be documented, I already mentioned the firmware, the chip has to have that extra A/D channel you are talking about or you need a different more powerful (more expensive) chip, the support of that extra A/D channel plus voltage to the pot requires more power, hence reduced battery life, more wiring, a place on the circuit board to accept the wiring, hence requiring more space, more testing to make sure the firmware works in all the different modes, more testing to make sure the aperture simulator works, etc., etc. the list goes on I'm sure. Exactly. In addition, you can divide the costs into two parts: NRE (non-recurring engineering, which is done once per model type and not once per unit manufactured), and per-unit costs due to parts, assembly, and testing. Even if the per-unit costs are zero (i.e., the additional parts and manufacturing are free), it may not be worthwhile to add a feature if the development costs cannot be recovered via additional sales. My guess is that the number of people who refuse to buy a Pentax DSLR because of their lack of support for K/M lenses is not that big. What are the NRE costs involved in including full K/M compatibility in a camera? I don't know. I'm not a high-volume digital camera engineer. Anyone here with manufacturing engineering background care to actually make some estimates? Say in the number of engineering hours, broken down into design, development, integration, and test? Anyone care to estimate the number of lost sales of *istD and *istDs cameras due to limited K/M support? 100 cameras? 1000? 1 million? --Mark
Re: Albano featured in Photoblogs Magazine
On 9/18/05, Juan Buhler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just got email about the September issue of photoblogs magazine, and inside, found a writeup with photos by PDML's own Albano Garcia: http://www.photoblogsmagazine.org/magazine/sept2005/septalbano.php Congratulations Albano! If I didn't already hate Albano, I do now! LOL Got that one Peter? Seriously, thanks for pointing that out to us, Juan, and congrats, Albano, on a great article! cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
RE: Rename request
YES WE CAN- there is a long history of these parts in bottom of the line PENTAX cameras that sold for only $150 FOR THE WHOLE CAMERAHow much do you think that parts maximum cost could have been for that to be possible? jco -Original Message- From: Gonz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 1:44 AM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Rename request In a high volume situation, I would agree with you since you can amortize the cost of everything I mentioned over the run of the camera. But these are not high volume cameras, esp not the *istD. Of course both of us have no idea of what the actual cost is both from the development side to the manufacturing side, so we are just speculating anyways. We cannot make a blanket statement either way on whether or not cost was an issue here. rg J. C. O'Connell wrote: yes it does but it does for every one of many many components in the camera and this is an extremely sophisticated camera that sells for only $600 so I do not agree that the cost savings of this part removal was signifigant at all to justify its removal considering the big loss in fuctionality it causes in K mount lenses - unless of course they WANTED to cause a loss of functionality in K mount lenses and I really only see that now as the only logical motivation for doing what they did. It wasn't to save money or lower the selling price because that part isnt expensive to buy or implement into the system whatsoever. jco -Original Message- From: Gonz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 12:49 AM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Rename request J. C. O'Connell wrote: see my last post, engineering dollars? that cam sensor was engineered 35 years ago dude. Do you even know what we are talking about here? Its ONE pot with three wires on it read by a single A./D channel? That's freakin' childs play. Yes, the actual part is insignificant $, and most of the RD is already paid for. I say most because each camera has pretty much its own unique firmware, so there is a piece of firmware (and RD) that has to be added to every camera mode in order to support this. But this small delta cascades in many directions, i.e. in the user manual, it has to be documented, I already mentioned the firmware, the chip has to have that extra A/D channel you are talking about or you need a different more powerful (more expensive) chip, the support of that extra A/D channel plus voltage to the pot requires more power, hence reduced battery life, more wiring, a place on the circuit board to accept the wiring, hence requiring more space, more testing to make sure the firmware works in all the different modes, more testing to make sure the aperture simulator works, etc., etc. the list goes on I'm sure. rg
RE: green button wars (again)
STOP the personal attacks. It is irresponsible behavior for you to continue classify my posts as inane or religious or wasted bandwidth without responding to them directly. In other words if you cant refute what I am saying then you don't have the right to make those kind of personal insults without cause. This is the second time I have had to say this and I don't like it one bit. Respond to the posts IF YOU CAN. If you CANT, then stop the personal attacks.. Sincerely, JCO -Original Message- From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 2:11 AM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: green button wars (again) On Sep 19, 2005, at 8:32 PM, J. C. O'Connell wrote: YOUR spamming- please stop posting posts with absolutely no relevant content to the list... P.S. havent you got anything better to do that count my posts and report to the list? that's sad... What I'm posting is extremely relevant to the list: I'm pointing out how much email bandwidth is being wasted with these inane diatribes of yours. We're long since moved past sensible discussion of the topic and gotten into religion now. It's a tough job but somebody has to do it. I'll accept the burden for the good of the PDML community. :-) Godfrey
Buffer upgrade to DSLR
From DP Review: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0509/05092001s3pro256.asp Fujifilm Japan has today announced that it will make available an upgrade for the S3 Pro digital SLR which will increase the camera's internal buffer from 128 MB to 256 MB. I don't know about anyone else, but *I'd* pay a couple of hundred dollars to upgrade the buffer in my ist-D. :) -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
RE: Rename request
NO - I didn't state this before because its so obvious that I didn't think it needed stating. I am huge fan of the K/M PENTAX lenses. I really like them and I really enjoy using them. Some of the best lenses they ever made are in this series. There is no sense is disabling them over a $5 part without ANY compatability issues... I am not complaining here I am WARNING people here what this means but apparently its over their heads. Pentax has done a 180 and is NOW starting disabling older products with no compatability issues. If you cant see that as a WARNING its your loss. I don't think this list has anything to do with Pentax themselves does it? Are they on the list or something? jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 3:11 AM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Rename request In a message dated 9/19/2005 7:55:04 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You must not have had the pleasure of owning and using these K/M lenses and are playing some selfish game where you think your $5 savings is more important than continued support of perfectly working excellently designed and manufactured lenses costing much more than the entire body let alone the $5 part needed to support them fully. == What I can't understand is why you are so incensed. Are you stuck with a bunch of K/M lenses that you can't sell? And do you really believe that constantly complaining here will make Pentax change anything? Marnie aka Doe :-)
Re: Buffer upgrade to DSLR
ditto. On Sep 20, 2005, at 8:56 AM, Mark Roberts wrote: From DP Review: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0509/05092001s3pro256.asp Fujifilm Japan has today announced that it will make available an upgrade for the S3 Pro digital SLR which will increase the camera's internal buffer from 128 MB to 256 MB. I don't know about anyone else, but *I'd* pay a couple of hundred dollars to upgrade the buffer in my ist-D. :) -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
RE: Camera engineering (was Re: Rename request)
I am sorry but you are grossly mistaken on the entire issue. This isnt about things lasting forever. This is about compatability vs support. The K/M lenses are in NO WAY incompatable with the current mount (FA). What they are doing is DISABLING the features of these lenses even thought there are millions of them out there in perfect working conditon because they were made so well. **IF** and it's a big IF, there was some new feature or progress needed in the mount that necessitated the K/M support removal in order to move on or support something new and improved like imagae stabilization,etc then it would be reasonable to consider it because often progress is more important than compatiblity but this isnt the case, this is pure removal of support of a COMPATABLE lenses, millions of them, not just mine, WITHOUT ANY PROGRESS or new lens mount feature that necessitated it. Why is that so hard for you to understand??? jco -Original Message- From: John Forbes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 3:28 AM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Camera engineering (was Re: Rename request) We know that Pentax have lost one sale, so far. Not a lot, really. And all they have lost is the sale of a body. It is quite clear that the person in question won't buy another lens if he lives for four hundred years. I'd love to know what car /cart he drives, and I'm surprised his old Apple II can manage to access the Internet. His clothes must look a bit ragged as well. But he's absolutely right to insist that things work for ever. Change is such a difficult thing to handle. He makes the Amish look positively groovy. John On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 06:27:22 +0100, Mark Erickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: J. C. O'Connell wrote: see my last post, engineering dollars? that cam sensor was engineered 35 years ago dude. Do you even know what we are talking about here? Its ONE pot with three wires on it read by a single A./D channel? That's freakin' childs play. Yes, the actual part is insignificant $, and most of the RD is already paid for. I say most because each camera has pretty much its own unique firmware, so there is a piece of firmware (and RD) that has to be added to every camera mode in order to support this. But this small delta cascades in many directions, i.e. in the user manual, it has to be documented, I already mentioned the firmware, the chip has to have that extra A/D channel you are talking about or you need a different more powerful (more expensive) chip, the support of that extra A/D channel plus voltage to the pot requires more power, hence reduced battery life, more wiring, a place on the circuit board to accept the wiring, hence requiring more space, more testing to make sure the firmware works in all the different modes, more testing to make sure the aperture simulator works, etc., etc. the list goes on I'm sure. Exactly. In addition, you can divide the costs into two parts: NRE (non-recurring engineering, which is done once per model type and not once per unit manufactured), and per-unit costs due to parts, assembly, and testing. Even if the per-unit costs are zero (i.e., the additional parts and manufacturing are free), it may not be worthwhile to add a feature if the development costs cannot be recovered via additional sales. My guess is that the number of people who refuse to buy a Pentax DSLR because of their lack of support for K/M lenses is not that big. What are the NRE costs involved in including full K/M compatibility in a camera? I don't know. I'm not a high-volume digital camera engineer. Anyone here with manufacturing engineering background care to actually make some estimates? Say in the number of engineering hours, broken down into design, development, integration, and test? Anyone care to estimate the number of lost sales of *istD and *istDs cameras due to limited K/M support? 100 cameras? 1000? 1 million? --Mark -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.1/104 - Release Date: 16/09/2005
RE: How Pentax Could Survive (was:Re: Pentax K 2.5/200mm)
JOHN - STOP THE PERSONAL ATTACKS ON ME- reply to my posts and on-topic or don't reply at all. that's basic netiquitte. I don't call you an idiot but you are one if you continue that behavior. this is a discussion list about pentax. if you cant discuss pentax and would rather prefer to personally attack people instead then you don't belong here because the the purpose of the list is not to make personal public attacks. Its to discuss pentax. jco -Original Message- From: John Forbes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 7:21 AM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: How Pentax Could Survive (was:Re: Pentax K 2.5/200mm) Herb, You are a photographer. You know less than nothing about finance, or about marketing, or about how large corporations operate. You read a few handouts and come on here posturing as an expert on Pentax and the business world in general. As you yourself concede, Pentax as a company makes money. What you haven't cottoned onto is the value that the company attaches to the brand name, which may well cause them to stay in the camera business just to keep the name in the public eye. What you also know absolutely nothing about is the manner in which companies cost the different parts of their business, and how they choose to release this information to the public. You don't have the first idea how well or badly the imaging business is doing. What Pentax choose to tell the public may be completely different from the underlying reality, and if you were an accountant you would know that there is no single version of the underlying reality. But what really irritates me about you is your obsession with trawling the net to find bad news about Pentax and then reporting it here. You are even worse than that other obsessive idiot, JCO, because he restricts himself to periodic apoplectic outbursts, whereas you are a constant thorn in the flesh, like Chinese water torture. And the worst of it is, it's so self-defeating. If you spent a tenth of the time that you spend denigrating Pentax on promoting the company, you might help it to sell more products and thus stay in business and perhaps make the bodies you want. As it is, your wholly negative and destructive attitude is designed to do the opposite. You are a sad and unpleasant person, and I wish you would go away, or at least restrict your contribution to subjects you know something about. Photography, for instance. John On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 11:49:43 +0100, Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: you haven't figured it out yet, my position represents the same as that of people who manage hundreds of millions of dollars of Pentax stock. Pentax's camera business is in serious trouble, not the company. if Pentax pulls out of the camera business, then all the money have i have put into Pentax dead-ends. if they want to stay in the camera business they have to do much better than they are doing now. Olympus and Konica Minolta are in the same boat. those are the major players. Fuji is one of the minor players also in the same boat. these are just the DSLR manufacturers. this coming year is it. anyone who is not profitable in the digital camera game by 1Q 2006 isn't ever going to be. most camera companies didn't make their 1H fiscal 2005 sales figures, some by significant amounts but haven't lowered their YE 2005 forecasts. everyone is counting on a large 2H gain. keeping a division running that always loses money and has not hope of making any is really stupid. Herb - Original Message - From: John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 3:48 AM Subject: Re: How Pentax Could Survive (was:Re: Pentax K 2.5/200mm) Thank God for that. Then perhaps you can move on from your obsession with Pentax's financial downfall. -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.3/106 - Release Date: 19/09/2005
RE: Camera engineering (was Re: Rename request)
UMMM, excuse me this wasn't just a cost reduction, this was a feature reduction...Cost reduction in itself is always important to remain competetive no doubt but this was more than that because key functions were removed so its basically a bottom of the line model at the top of their line at the same time. secondly, I have 20 years exeperince in an electronics engineering lab at a manufacturing facility so my opinions are not without any experiences in the the field either... jco -Original Message- From: Mark Roberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 8:28 AM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Camera engineering (was Re: Rename request) Mark Erickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anyone here with manufacturing engineering background care to actually make some estimates? Say in the number of engineering hours, broken down into design, development, integration, and test? I have a little background in this area, having worked in the Components Engineering department for an electronics manufacturer. I won't give exact estimates but I will say that anyone who's never worked in the business has no idea how zealously cost reduction is pursued. The design engineers count every part that goes on a circuit board, regardless of cost, and strive to reduce the number of part placements (even though these placements are performed by lightning-fast robotic equipment). Every part placement contributes just a fraction of a cent to overall cost, but it's counted. Selection of the parts themselves is scrutinized thoroughly. I had a friend who was a sales rep for HP Semiconductor (before it was spun off to become Agilent Semiconductor... and when they still *had* field sales reps) who told me that a *half cent* per component price difference could decide whether he won or lost a bid. In addition to the cost of the part itself, there are also any other parts associated with it. One voltage regulator I.C. might require three external resistors and two capacitors to function, while another may require six resistors and one capacitor. So besides considering which I.C. is cheaper, they figure in the cost of the external components. Capacitors are generally cheaper than resistors, but the cost varies with value so the one that requires two capacitors *may* still be cheaper... for some designs, but not necessarily for others. Then the cost of the extra component placement is figured in. Components that have to be hand-placed are anathema: Any engineer who puts one in his design will have to justify it to high levels of management. Trim potentiometers are to be avoided if at all possible. Potentiometers and electromechanical devices in general are to be avoided wherever possible. (Simply from a manufacturing standpoint, I have concluded that the existence of the potentiometer alone in the old Pentax K-mount makes its return in the 21st century a complete non-starter: You can stick a fork in it, it's done.) The scary part to me is that the company I worked for was in a much less competitive business segment than mass-market consumer goods (they enjoyed profit margins on each product that Pentax, Canon, Nikon can only *dream* of). In Asian electronics manufacturing plants I have no doubt that they're even more fanatical than the environment in which I worked. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
RE: Re: istDS Exposure Problems
I just gave it your test. Darn and shucks, if that's not what's happening. Sluggish diaphragm. I think I'll send it off to Don's House of Lens Repair, Storm Door Company, and Bagel Bakery. LOL Shel [Original Message] From: Don Sanderson To test the aperture mechanism, stop the lens all the way down, hold the aperture open with your finger via the lever on the back of the lens, wait a few minutes and then release the lever as fast as you can while looking thru then lens. The blades should close _way_ faster than your finger can move. Repeat several times and I'll bet you'll see variations. Putting it in the fridge for a while will probably make the variations more obvious. Remember, it's the fast closing part that counts, it has all the time in the world to open back up. You can always send it to Don's house of lens repair if you need to. ;-)
Re: Camera engineering (was Re: Rename request)
JCO, The thing that you seem unwilling to concede or admit is that these legacy lenses CAN still be used, ARE still being used, and still take fine pictures. Your point about them doing away with the metering coupler, or whatever it's called, has been made already. Pentax chose to do away with it. For whatever reason, they decided it was good enough. Maybe at some later date the might put it back (I personally doubt it). You say that you no longer trust Pentax because they abandoned 100% compatibility with K M lenses. That this marks a major shift in Pentax policy. Fine. Buy a Canon and a stack of FD lenses. Oh wait, they wont even fit on the current crop of SLR / DSLR's without the use of an adapter. OK try Nikon and a bunch of AI AI-S lenses. You can fit some of them, but you can't meter with them at all unless you spring for the top of the line Nikon body. We Pentax users have it pretty good as far as I'm concerned. Also, you keep hammering away at anyone who posts an opinion contrary to your views. And your doing it in such a rude and aggressive way that any credibility you had at the start has vanished. As the saying goes You'll catch more flies with honey than vinegar. Try backing off the confrontational tone and people will be more inclined to listen. Dave On 9/20/05, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Secondly, the whole product support issue seems to be lost on you. Its not a simple matter of how many new units will or wont sell without a given part in it. It a matter of continued support of legacy products whenever possible within reasonable or no costs. And in my opinion, my strong opionion, it is NOT a reasonable decision to cripple the K/M lenses at this time because of this dirt cheap parts removal from a $600 plus camera unless there is another model that does support it and there isnt... snip
Re: Buffer upgrade to DSLR
Double ditto. Dave On 9/20/05, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ditto. On Sep 20, 2005, at 8:56 AM, Mark Roberts wrote: From DP Review: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0509/05092001s3pro256.asp Fujifilm Japan has today announced that it will make available an upgrade for the S3 Pro digital SLR which will increase the camera's internal buffer from 128 MB to 256 MB. I don't know about anyone else, but *I'd* pay a couple of hundred dollars to upgrade the buffer in my ist-D. :) -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Buffer upgrade to DSLR
Make it triple. -- Boris
Best high speed short telephoto?
I'm looking for something that may not exist. Back in my film days when I shot a lot of concerts, I was quite fond of my 135mm f2.5 zoom. Not the sharpest lens on the planet, but the combination of reach and speed seemed to work well in combination with the 28 and 50mm lenses. These days, I have found that when shooting with my DS, I still like my old manual-focus lenses because they are faster (f5.6 just doesn't cut it on a dark stage). However, the 135mm lens tends to get me TOO CLOSE to my subjects. Seems like I want something in the 70-90mm range, that is no slower than about f/4. Doesn't have to be autofocus, or even an A lens as I tend to use them wide open in these situations anyways. Is there something reasonably-priced out there that would fill this void? I just don't have a clue. And, as you can probably guess, since I am already using the Takumar 135mm f2.5, I'm not hugely critical about sharpness and contrast. I mean, I like a well-focused clear image, but again - concert photography isn't exactly high art. Suggestions, anyone? -Charles -- Charles Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Minneapolis, MN http://charles.robinsontwins.org
Re: Camera engineering (was Re: Rename request)
- Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Why is that so hard for you to understand??? Why is it so hard for you to accept that Pentax has f***ed you in the ass and move on? Face it, and I know other pdmlers have already stated this, it's a goddam conspiracy for Pentax to sell new lenses! Nikon did it already and Pentax saw an opportunity to follow their lead. Move the F*** on already. Christian
RE: Best high speed short telephoto?
There's not much choice in the 70mm~90mm range except for the various 85mm lenses, both in screw mount and in K mount. They all tend to be a bit spendy, more or less. If you can live with it, a Super Takumar 105/2.8 may be just the thing. Comes in a K-mount as well. There's also the M 100/2.8. Shel [Original Message] From: Charles Robinson I'm looking for something that may not exist. Back in my film days when I shot a lot of concerts, I was quite fond of my 135mm f2.5 zoom. Not the sharpest lens on the planet, but the combination of reach and speed seemed to work well in combination with the 28 and 50mm lenses. These days, I have found that when shooting with my DS, I still like my old manual-focus lenses because they are faster (f5.6 just doesn't cut it on a dark stage). However, the 135mm lens tends to get me TOO CLOSE to my subjects. Seems like I want something in the 70-90mm range, that is no slower than about f/4. Doesn't have to be autofocus, or even an A lens as I tend to use them wide open in these situations anyways. Is there something reasonably-priced out there that would fill this void? I just don't have a clue. And, as you can probably guess, since I am already using the Takumar 135mm f2.5, I'm not hugely critical about sharpness and contrast. I mean, I like a well-focused clear image, but again - concert photography isn't exactly high art. Suggestions, anyone?
Re: Camera engineering (was Re: Rename request)
On 9/20/05, John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip He makes the Amish look positively groovy.snip Is it okay to make fun of the Amish on the internet, because they don't have electricity, let alone computers? g -frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Best high speed short telephoto?
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 15:41:22 +0200, Charles Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Seems like I want something in the 70-90mm range, that is no slower than about f/4. Doesn't have to be autofocus, or even an A lens as I tend to use them wide open in these situations anyways. Is there something reasonably-priced out there that would fill this void? I just don't have a clue. From pentax there are several 85mm lenses, the M85/2 is supposed to cost about €150,-. I'm not sure if you'd call that reasonable... If you're willing to buy third party lenses: I can heartily recommend the Tamron SP90 1:2,5 macro. I paid €110,- for mine in mint condition, including a KA mount adaptall adapter and a matching extension tube. Most other 90mm third party macro lenses (vivitar, sigma, tokina) get rave reviews as well... Hope this helps, -- Regards, Lucas
RE: Camera engineering (was Re: Rename request)
I am sorry but you certainly can not have been reading or comprehending all my posts because if you had read them you would know I was forced to say it repeatedly, possibly for the third time now, this is totally different than NIKON OR CANON FD situations. With CANON FD- they lost FD mounting because they totally updated and substantially IMPROVED the entire mount to EOS - That was more like the screw to K upgrade but with much better upgrades than just mounting technique. With this pentax situation there IS NO NEW MOUNT or NO NEW MOUNT FEATURE which necessitated the drop of support of K/M aperture setting communication like FDEOS DID. With NIKON- THEY STILL SUPPORT those lenses you mention for customers who want and are willing to pay for it, that's much better than Pentax because Pentax does NOT offer it all at this time and might not ever offer it again for all we know. And I do listen. But I do not agree that all opposing opinions are created equal because responses like yours, which grossly overlooked the REASONS behind the FD support changes vs this new pentax change miss the point entirely. Its like we are talking apples and organges because you don't see the key difference between legacy support whenever possible vs. compatibity issues caused by the need for progress. There is NO PROGRESS assocated with this pentax change in policy, it's not even staying the same, its pure regression... JCO -Original Message- From: David Savage [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 9:33 AM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Camera engineering (was Re: Rename request) JCO, The thing that you seem unwilling to concede or admit is that these legacy lenses CAN still be used, ARE still being used, and still take fine pictures. Your point about them doing away with the metering coupler, or whatever it's called, has been made already. Pentax chose to do away with it. For whatever reason, they decided it was good enough. Maybe at some later date the might put it back (I personally doubt it). You say that you no longer trust Pentax because they abandoned 100% compatibility with K M lenses. That this marks a major shift in Pentax policy. Fine. Buy a Canon and a stack of FD lenses. Oh wait, they wont even fit on the current crop of SLR / DSLR's without the use of an adapter. OK try Nikon and a bunch of AI AI-S lenses. You can fit some of them, but you can't meter with them at all unless you spring for the top of the line Nikon body. We Pentax users have it pretty good as far as I'm concerned. Also, you keep hammering away at anyone who posts an opinion contrary to your views. And your doing it in such a rude and aggressive way that any credibility you had at the start has vanished. As the saying goes You'll catch more flies with honey than vinegar. Try backing off the confrontational tone and people will be more inclined to listen. Dave On 9/20/05, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Secondly, the whole product support issue seems to be lost on you. Its not a simple matter of how many new units will or wont sell without a given part in it. It a matter of continued support of legacy products whenever possible within reasonable or no costs. And in my opinion, my strong opionion, it is NOT a reasonable decision to cripple the K/M lenses at this time because of this dirt cheap parts removal from a $600 plus camera unless there is another model that does support it and there isnt... snip
Re: Best high speed short telephoto?
On 20/9/05, Charles Robinson, discombobulated, unleashed: Seems like I want something in the 70-90mm range, that is no slower than about f/4. Doesn't have to be autofocus, or even an A lens as I tend to use them wide open in these situations anyways. Is there something reasonably-priced out there that would fill this void? I just don't have a clue. The A*85mm f/1.4 is what you need. Depends how you define 'reasonably priced'. I paid about 900 USD for mine, and for what it is, that's very reasonable. Beaters at $400, mint at $1400. There isn't a better lens for the money IMO. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: PESO: Others 2005 - 37p - GDG
On 9/20/05, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A view of Arundel Castle: http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW5/37p.htm Comments and critique always appreciated. I like it. The angle, with the flowery hill, makes the castle look quite imposing. cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: istDS Exposure Problems
On two occasions I've had a problem with stuck stop-down levers. In one case (A*-300mm f/2.8) it was sent to Pentax Colorado. I had it 'handled' by a local camera shop with which I've been closely associated for many years. When returned, I opened it in the presence of the shop owner. First thing I did was activate the lever by hand. It stuck! The incensed shop owner was ready to pack it up then and there to send back, but I wanted to try it for a few days. That was in the mid eighties and I've had no indication of its happening since. In the second case, with a no longer owned early version of the SMC 28~200, the new owner related the same problem. Later learned he had let it pass and, at that point, had not had it recur. No particular point here. Just felt like relating. Jack --- Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree and no, it was not a sudden change in the light. I'm gonna go for the simple explanation for the time being ;-)) Thanks! Shel Am I paranoid or perceptive? [Original Message] From: John Forbes The simple explanation is usually the one to go for. The aperture is set by the lens. The camera's only input is to activate the stop down lever, and I would guess that that is something that either works or it doesn't. The camera of course has to fire the shutter at the correct speed, and I would think that an intermittent problem here in such a well-tested and common mechanism is rather unlikely. Again, these tend either to work properly or not at all. So, in my view, and assuming it's not a sudden light shift, as Kostas suggested, it comes down to the lens. You exercised it AFTER the event, so it's working properly now, but it might not have been when you took the picture. __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
RE: Camera engineering (was Re: Rename request)
I am only responding to these lame attempts to somehow prove that Pentax's decision **wasn't*** a screwing of not just me but millions of other pentax customers.. And if you are conceding that Pentax has indeed screwed their customers, what exactly makes you think you wont be next in line??? That's why I am so riled by this. Their credibility and trustworthyness is gone forever unless and until they do something to prove otherwise... JCO -Original Message- From: Christian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 9:49 AM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Camera engineering (was Re: Rename request) - Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Why is that so hard for you to understand??? Why is it so hard for you to accept that Pentax has f***ed you in the ass and move on? Face it, and I know other pdmlers have already stated this, it's a goddam conspiracy for Pentax to sell new lenses! Nikon did it already and Pentax saw an opportunity to follow their lead. Move the F*** on already. Christian
Re: Buffer upgrade to DSLR
Quadruple, it's my only major issue with the D. -Adam Boris Liberman wrote: Make it triple.
Re: Fixer Labs software
On 9/19/05, Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i've been using it since it came out. it is one of the true deblurring Photoshop filters. until Smart Sharpen came out in Photoshop CS2, there was no real deblur function in Photoshop that allowed modifying any settings. Unsharp Mask is not a deblurring function. once you are able to understand and use a proper deblurring filter, you will never use Unsharp Mask again. Herb... I bought a copy of Focus Fixer a couple of months ago. I'm still playing around with the settings, but have used it to save a couple of photos. (Prints had been ordered on the strength of seeing teeny tiny proof thumbnails and I found later when coming to print them that the focus was off) -- Wendy Beard Ottawa Canada
Re: How Pentax Could Survive (was:Re: Pentax K 2.5/200mm)
On 20/9/05, John Forbes, discombobulated, unleashed: You are a sad and unpleasant person, and I wish you would go away, or at least restrict your contribution to subjects you know something about. Photography, for instance. I think that's a compliment ;-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: PESO - On a stick
On 9/19/05, Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This particular cattail was intriguing because it looked so much like a hot dog to me. Pentax *istD, K 200/2.5, Handheld ISO 200, 1/1000 sec http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/bkd_2173.htm Yes, it does rather. Aren't these the things we call Bullrushes? Is there a difference or just a regional name variation? Wendy
Re: green button wars (again)
- Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Monday, September 19, 2005 11:09 PM Subject: RE: green button wars (again) as for reasons to switch from PS digicams to DSLRS are DSLRS actually quieter? Why? Bigger sensor/photosites for the same resolution. an 8MP digicam is way nosier at ISO 400 than an 8mp DSLR at ISO 1600 for this reason. Are they really faster now, PS digicams have narrowed that gap considerably havent they?. Shutter lag and EVF lag are still a problem on digicams in my experience, even the SLR-like EVF cams. ISO limits are not much of an issue. People used 400 film with much lower image qualtiy in there slow lensed PS film cameras and didn't care much... Consumer grade 400 film is still better than a typical noisy digicam, in my opinion, at ISO 400. As an aside to respond to a previous post of yours: I know dozens of people (co-workers who have some money) who have never owned a film SLR and have moved from film PSes or digicams to DSLRs. ALL of them have chosen Canon (digirebels, 20Ds and yes, several more affluent people have purchased 1DIIs) and almost all of them use them - even the 1DII gasp! - in Program mode. Christian
