Re: My *ist D review is now complete
Hello Robert, The 5 image continuous max keeps bugging me when they had originally said max. I wonder if its because you had noise reduction turned on? I had it turned off. I need to reread my text, maybe I wrote it wrong... Thanks for pointing it out, Boz
*ist D impressions
Hi all, it looks like I do not have permission to post any sample images from the *ist D. Not until I get a real retail body. Still, I can assure you that the camera is very nice and ergonomic, and seems to be worth the wait. The JPGs look good, with a very light blue tint. The JPGs are somewhat larger than those from the Canon 10D, but are very fine. The *ist D and 10D perform very similarly at ISO 1600, that is, digital noise is controled quite well. The *ist D is somewhat louder (mirror slap and shutter sound), and with a lower FPS rate. Because of the larger files, its buffer fills up faster, and it takes longer to write it to the CF card. I have the numbers, and I will put up a more comprehensive repost soon. The *ist D viewfinder shows a somewhat larger image than that of the 10D. Under bright conditions, the images are equally bright, but under darker conditions (room lit up by a 100W lamp) the 10D shows a brighter and smoother viewfinder image. The *ist D has nicer and larger viewfinder information-symbols. Battery life seems to be better with the 10D, but it is difficult to compare over such a short time. The *ist D needed one full 4 AA alcalines set whereas the 10D showed full charge the entire time. It may be that the alcalines were old or not very good. I also tested the FAJ 18-35 but have not yet evaluated the results. Expect first complete texts on the KMP on Wednesday... Cheers, Boz -- _\\|//_ Imagination is more important than knowledge... 0(` O-O ')0 A. Einstein ===ooO=(_)=Ooo=== Bojidar D. Dimitrov author and editor, Pentax K-Mount web page [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://kmp.BDimitrov.de/ = __ __
Re: *ist D delayed again
Hello Ken, 2. Pentax apparently tweaked the CF retrieval area (in beta testers, you had to fiddle and jiggle a bit to pull out a CF. Now they apparently enlarged the area so that you can actually see the battery! I have one of those, and while still fiddly, it is workable. Sometimes I need to tilt the camera to the right so that the CF card slips out due to gravity. They are not worried about the Rebel competition as the *istD is a different class. In terms of equality, the *ist D plays in the same liga as the 10D, so theoretically they should not be concerned. But we know that price is very important, so lots and lots of people will buy the 300D based on its price and not based on how it holds against the *ist D. However, Canon was apparently threatened by *istD and made a big pre-announcement extravaganza (teaser ads etc) and their president came out to prop up the expectation. Now this I find pure wishfull thinking... Cheers, Boz -- _\\|//_ Imagination is more important than knowledge... 0(` O-O ')0 A. Einstein ===ooO=(_)=Ooo=== Bojidar D. Dimitrov author and editor, Pentax K-Mount web page [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://kmp.BDimitrov.de/ = __ __
Re: *ist D delayed again
Hello Rick, You must be a really patient person! People really need to be more patient on this camera coming out. It is not the end of the world if the camera is delayed another few weeks! You call 20 weeks few? I'm counting since CeBIT, but maybe I should count since the announcement of the MZ-D? Or should I count since the announcement of the Canon D30? Cheers, Boz
ist D noise reduction (WAS: someone to host *ist D images)
Hi Alin, Boz, try to get best quality jpegs, without noise-reduction if possible. The settings are RAW, TIFF L, TIFF M, TIFF S, ***L, **L, *L, ***M, **M, *M, ***S, **S, *S. I have found out how to turn off noise reduction, so I will do it that way. I guess the best was to compare quality is TIFF L vs. TIFF created from a RAW Canon file (Canon does not write TIFF files). BUt such files would be huge, so I guess we will have to stay with large/fine JPGs. Cheers, Boz
Ist D software (WAS: someone to host *ist D images)
Hi Rob, Does the istD come with RAW software? If I were to buy a jap import, would I get an english version of the software? Is this kind of stuff downloadable normally? All Canon cameras come with RAW software. The 10D comes with a driver for most Windows systems, download/view software, RAW-converter, panorama stitching software, etc. I assume that Pentax will too. English will probably always be incuded. Canon ships 2 or three languages on a given CD but not ALL languages. I have a Canon CD with English and German and another with Spanish, French and English. Pentax might do the same. I thought everything is available for download, but based on some other answers, I am not sure any more. Cheers, Boz
Re: Flash questions
Hello Kostas, I am trying to understand what it will take so as to enable an MZ-5n (or and MZ bar the MZ-S) to do contrast-control-sync flash. Could not find anything on Boj's site or on the Pentax UK/US sites. It's there. Go to the Flashes page and look under General Information. All you need is to connect two F-type flashes somehow (anyhow), and enable contrast-flash on one of them. That's it! One of the two flashes can be the built-in one. Cheers, Boz -- _\\|//_ Imagination is more important than knowledge... 0(` O-O ')0 A. Einstein ===ooO=(_)=Ooo=== Bojidar D. Dimitrov author and editor, Pentax K-Mount web page [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://kmp.BDimitrov.de/ = __ __
Re: FA-J lenses (WAS: Re: *ist)
Paal wrote: I've been told that the FA-J lenses are strictly entry level and that there will be no higher end FA-J lenses. Dario Bonazza wrote: I won't believe that for one second. When you (Pentax) remove diaphragm simulator from top end models (like the *ist D undoubtably currently is), removing aperture ring from your (Pentax) lens line is just a matter of time. I am with you Dario. I am confident that all further Pentax cameras will lack support for K/M lenses and that all further lenses will be FAJ (further Limited lenses excluded [or maybe not excluded])... On the other hand, there is a scenario under which both Paal and Dario are correct, but I will leave this as an excercise for the reader... Cheers, Boz
Pentax's future (was: *ist D revisited)
Hi Peter, Giving the option of stop down metering with K mount lenses would have cost nothing in hardware and no more in software development than has already be expended. It to would have made the camera no less attractive to beginners with no difference in cost and would have kept at least some semblance of K mount compatibility. I agree fully. The decision to kill K mount compatibility is a blindingly stupid marketing move. Nothing more. I do not think so. I think that Pentax's future really lies in the crippled (AKA FAJ-mount, AKA Kaf3), and if they are to do this thing, then why not now? For the kinds of customers that Pentax is after, it really makes sense economically to leave out the aperture ring and the aperture simulator. These are complex mechanical shapes that require lots of machining and complex assembly, and they are a source of problems due to wear and tear. The decision to make K and M lenses obsolete (DO YOU ALL BELIEVE ME NOW?) is an economically sound one, and with it Pentax hopes to cut down production costs and to limit the amount of explaining that goes into their operating manuals. Now, this is all a speculation on my side, but just like the prediction that the *ist and *ist D will not work with the K/M lenses, it is my prediction that Pentax will not release another camera or lens that supports aperture-ring operation. There might be another limited lens that has an aperture ring, I don't know. Or there might be a Limited lens without an aperture ring, and if it is a good one, you will all buy it. This will ease your move towards the crippled mount. It is also my prediction that if Pentax survives this transition (from Kaf2 to crippled-mount), there will eventually be a further mount evolution that will support IS lenses. I am sure that the *ist and ist D mount does not support any unknown-to-us features. At this time Pentax is barely hanging on, but if they make it, it is clear to them that they need to follow up with IS. Good luck to Pentax, Boz
Re: *ist D revisited
Hi Heiko, What did they say? Probably that they need to make everything cheaper than Canon, otherwise it does not sell. Another question remaining open: does the LCD operate when taking pictures or only in playback-mode? Surely you can only see the image AFTER taking it. Before that the sensor sees no light at all. Cheers, Boz
Re: *ist D revisited
Hi Roland, We don't know yet if this lens mount really is crap. It might have support for IS and USM. It's too early to tell. *If* it has support for USM and IS, then I doubt that Pentax is going to tell anyone before they have released IS and USM lenses. Simply because if they tell it before the lenses exist, this might hurt sales on the existing lenses. You never cease to amaze me! You hypothesis is very far fetched, but for Pentax's sake I hope taht you are right... As so often with Pentax, we just have to wait and see what happens. There is a further alternative, and I am already walking the path... Cheers, Boz
Re: *ist SLR and K-mount lenses
Hi Roland, Yes, Pentax has promised three filmbased cameras in the complete *ist lineup. And so far we have only seen one. But I doubt that the user interface and styling of the 5n will be repeated. Please remind me, when and where did they give this promise? Thank you, Boz
Re: *ist/*istD are crippled because Pentax kneecapped them (was: *ist Drevisited)
Hi Roland, I remember that we had a discussion a while back about an aperture motor inside the FAJ lenses since Pentax seems to have changed the electrical protocol for the aperture, I don't think that we came to an absolute conclusion. I have missed this discussion, but I can assure you that there is no motor/solenoid/etc. in the A50/2, A35/2.8, A100/2.8, F50/1.7, FA 35-80/4-5.6 or FA80-320/4.5-5.6. If there was such a thing, these lenses would never work with an LX or something such. Cheers, Boz
Re: Bad PR
Hi Anthony, New sales opportunity for Pentax - remake the K/M classics in FA or FAJ mount. Can't use your M85/1.8 on your new *ist? Can we interest you in a brand new FAJ85/1.8? ;-) I have wondered the same thing too... They do have the optical formulas, so why don't they rerelease them with new mechanics/electronics? Well, I think the answer is that in order for the AF to be fast (and you want it to be fast), you really need an IF optical construction. And none of the older and simpler optical diagrams are IF. Look at the A vs. FA 85/1.4, A vs. F/FA 100/2.8 Macro, A vs. FA 200/4 Macro, A* vs. FA* 300/2.8, etc. Cheers, Boz
Hello and lots and lots for sale
Hello everybody, I guess that this is a message from the great beyond... First of all, please visit http://kmp.bdimitrov.de/for_sale/items/ in order to see my long list of items for sale. I will wait for 10-14 days, and will then sell all remaining items on eBay. Feel free to group items together and to make me offers, but please remain realistic. The list contains lenses, bodies, lots LX accessories, manuals, cases, hoods, etc. Otherwise, what's been happening with me? It has been a couple of months since I started my Canon excursion. At first it was just an experiment and a protest against Pentax's recent product releases: - *ist camera incompatible with K/M lenses, - FAJ lenses, - possibility of *ist D not supporting K/M lenses, - still no USM technology, - still no IS technology - still no DSLR, - ... At present Canon EOS is my primary system, and since I cannot afford to own two systems, I am selling off my Pentax gear. This is a sad event, but I am convinced (internally, for me) that whatever products Pentax might release, I will be able to get equivalents from Canon, and I (personally) will not regret my move. Yes, I know, it is like voting for Microsoft and joining the Big bad Brother, but I do not feel that it is MY job to save Pentax. Through the existence and maintenance of the KMP, I feel that I have done my part. So, most of you want to ask, what are my impressions from Canon? Well, here are the negative sides: - Canon's equipment is generally larger and heavier, - Canon's lens coating is slightly inferior to SMC, - Canon's non-pro bodies have small viewfinders and no spot-meters. On the positive side are things like: - a complete palette of high-quality products, bodies, lenses, flashes - undisputed leader in small-format digital photography - top technology: USM, IS, AF teleconverts - very high availability of new and used products, generally lower prices than the competition In the end, what does this mean? Well, if Pentax builds the products that YOU need, then there is no need for YOU to consider another brand. Pentax products are generally well designed and well built, and sometimes they are better than the competition. The trouble starts when Pentax allows gaping holes in their products lines and when they abandon compatibility with older products. This all bothered me, so I looked elsewhere. This was my personal decision, and now I do not even look on eBay any more because I have everything that I need: - a small and light film-based kit: EOS 30 (Elan 7e), 24/2.8 + 28-105/3.5-4.5 - a serious-amateur film-based kit: EOS 30 (Elan 7e), 20-35/3.5-4.5, 50/1.8, 100/2.8 Macro, 70-200/4, 400/5.6, external flash - a serious digital kit: Canon 10D + any Canon lens that I own. I am happy, and now that I do not spend so much time on eBay, PDML or KMP, I have lots of time to go shooting. I ordered the 10D immediately after I learned that Pentax has delayed the *ist D. Within two hours of receiving the 10D, I was lucky to shoot the following image: http://www.bdimitrov.de/private/wood_warbler.jpg I was using the EF 400/5.6 USM L lens and built-in flash. On the DSLR the lens appears to be 640/5.6, and the cropped out image covers about 70% of the entire image. Within an hour of taking the image, I had it touched up in PainShopPro and printed out. What an amazing experience! And in the end, just a warning to those considering the *ist D. Regardless of how much the body costs, plan on spending twice as much. You will probably need a MicroDrive or two, extra batteries, a charger, probably a couple of new lenses, you will need to upgrade your computer, your printer will NEVER be good enough, and you WILL want to buy insurance for your new body. So, if you have to collect the last dollars for the DSLR, then consider waiting for 6 months or so. Not following this advice will quickly lead you to my situation --- emergency sale of every piece of non-essential equipment... Best wishes to all, Boz -- WARNING: new e-mail address: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _\\|//_ Imagination is more important than knowledge... 0(` O-O ')0 A. Einstein ===ooO=(_)=Ooo=== Bojidar D. Dimitrov author and editor, Pentax K-Mount web page [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://kmp.BDimitrov.de/ = __ __
Re: Pentax AF 220T flash question
Hi Caveman, I found on Boz's site this mention about the Pentax 220T flash: Despite featuring a completely analog interface, this flash seems to be incompatible with the manual focus bodies. However, I have a vague remembering that someone on this list used (or at least tried) it with an LX. I too, would be interested to know. My recollection was that the at least two people had problems usign the new flash on old bodies. The flash woul, of course, fire, but it would always fire with full power. Of it is no TTL flash, but fully manaul with 1/1 power. Cheers, Boz
Re: Pentax -- Canon
Hi Alin, In general you are correct, and these are my biggest gripes with Canon too, along with the crummy viewfinders (theoretically, in practice they work at least as well as the 5n). - everything from lenses to bodies is almost twice as big and heavy than equivalent Pentax (entry level aside); Herally yes. But the 70-200/4 is only 15 gam heavier and 9 mm longer than the A70-210/4. And the A zoom is the one that I've been carrying around in the pastfew years. So the weight and size difference was worth it to me, at least in this case. The new EOS 300V (Revel Ti) is smaller than the 5n, and has a few extra features that I like. - EF zooms and even L lenses flare like hell (truly I can't understand how a company technologically committed can effectively disdain quality MC); I have read this, and I believe it (sad for Canon). The only lenses that I have compared side by side are the 24-85 and 24-90 as well as the K85/1.8 with the 85/1.8 USM. In the first case I saw no real differences, in the second case Canon was better. But I consider the K85/1.8 to have the worst coating of any SMC lens. In general you are probably right... - no spot meter on mid level bodies (to me spot is crucial, and much as I like the EOS-30, the lack of true spot cut my appeal for it) Yes, you are right, but I personally use the spot meter relatively rarely. If I'm not sure, I take an extra shot. And I will probably be OK with 9.5% partial meter. Thank you for the way in which you participate in this discussion! Cheers, Boz
Re: Pentax -- Canon
Hi, Bojidar Dimitrov schrieb: I hope that Arnold will tell you a story about his FA 135/2.8. Arnold Stark wrote: It IS built like a tank. Execpt for two unfortunate details: The lens is easily scratched on the barrel, and the focusing ring is much more loose than on other FA primes. Actually, the story I was hoping for is: Arnold puts an FA135/2.8 for sale on eBay. They buyer returns it because it is loose like hell. Arnold shows me the lens and asks for my honest opinion. We both agree that it has the same look and feel like a new FA 135/2.8. Cheers, Boz PS: I have owned an FA 100/2.8 Macro, and it felt the same way. The FA 24-90/3.5-4.5 and FA 80-320/4.5-5.6 feel thes ame, but they are plastic, so altogether they are even worse...
Re: Pentax -- Canon
Hi Heiko, But what I'm interested in - why did you switch to Canon and not to Nikon? With Canon I get the feeling of being in the modern part of Berlin. With Pentax I feel like I am in an older house. Not that this is bad, just I prefer the modern building. Nikon would be a renovated old house, not worth the trouble or the moving expenses... Cheers, Boz
Re: Pentax -- Canon
Hi Roland, My FA 135 f/2.8 is built like a tank, I'm sure that it can stand the attack of missiles. It's a full metal construction. I hope that Arnold will tell you a story about his FA 135/2.8. I also like the build quality of my FA 28 f/2.8 and FA 50 f/1.7. While these are not bad, ask your friend, the owner of the EOS 3 to show you some Canon lenses: the EF 28/2.8 or AF 50/1.8, if he has them. An even better example yould be the very ordinary EF 24-85/3.5-4.5 USM or EF 28-105/3.5-4.5. Then play with an L lens, if you can... I like the build quality of my FA 28-105 f/3.2-4.5. It's much more solid than my FA 28-70 f/4 was. I have owned both lenses too, and for me both were equally cheaply built. Same like the FA 24-90, which mechanically is light yeras behind the EF 24-85/3.5-4.5. So, FA lenses are *not* cheaply built - except from some consumer zooms. I find your facts a bit weak, but feel is something subjective, so I am happy that you are happy. -- the second-hand market is VERY small: the good stuff is difficult to find, there are lots of people who want it, and it is expensive. Obviously Pentax photographers hold onto their gear. They don't sell it. Maybe they just don't like Pentax's AF offerings, or there are NO auto-focus offerings to replace the K, M or A lenses? - top-of-the-line Pentax = serious amateur from the other manufacturers (for example MZ-S = Canon 30/Elan 7e) That's your personal rating. MZ-S = EOS 3. Either I do not fully understand the MZ-S or you do not fully understand the EOS 3... No, 4 bodies supports it. MZ-S, MZ-6, *ist and *ist D. With more to follow. The *ist and *ist D are not available for sale, so at this time (and at time when I was making my decision) there are only two. ++ top lenses in every focal length Not the entry level consumer zooms (like the 28-85 USM and DC). They have not got favourable reviews, at least not in Sweden. Neither do any of Pentax's 28-80 or 28-90 zooms (expluding the f/2.8 version). But the entry level lenses are very plastic with no distance information scale. So are Pentax's. The MZ-5n is far more intuitive to use. When the aperture rings disappear, there will be no MZ-5n any more. The more I use my MZ-5n, the more I like it. It's a beautiful camera. I like the 5n too. In fact, I might even sell the LX and superProgram but keep the 5n as the only Pentax body to serve my Pentax glass. Cheers, Boz
Pentax -- Canon
Hi again, I really did not plan to dwell so long on this topic, but since several of you asked me to post from time to time my impressions of the two systems, here is my first installment. Until I have enough images shot with Canon lenses, I will limit myself to a THEORETICAL comparison of the two systems. Please do not argue about details, whether I should give 2 or three pluses, whether something is really-really true or true only in general. Please concentrate of the big picture. Do not forget that this is MY PERSONAL ranking. YOURS will definitely differ from mine. In fact if it didn't, you should jump ship too, as the comparison below is starkly in favor of Canon. Cheers, Boz Pentax == +++ top design (bodies and lenses are generally small and light, the user interfaces are generally very clean, design philosophy seems to be less is more; sometimes this leads to leaving out useful features; less is more might not be very true lately, as evidenced from products like the MZ-S, AF360FGZ, *ist) ++ K-mount compatibility --- with the exception of four low-end bodies and two low-end lenses, all other body-lens combinations work without any limitations (if it were not for the *ist and FAJ lenses I would have given 3 stars, and this would have been Pentax's strongest point) ++ SMC and ghostless coating ++ top lenses in every focal length (sadly, mostly older manual focus ones) ++ the Limited lenses (sadly only three lenses at this time) ++ the LX, and the system of accessories around it + although there are none in production, there are several mechanical bodies in the system + the common K, M and A lenses can be found easily at very low prices (28/2.8, 35/2.8, 50/1.4, 50/1.7, 100/2.8, 135/2.5, 135/3.5, 200/4) + the AF bodies can also control the older flashes + smaller theft risk -- no clear statement about future involvement in the serious photo market (some of you believe in certain rumors, but Pentax had made no clear statement. Sorry, I do not consider Paal as a serious PENTAX statement. Paal, no offense, but many of your predictions have proven to be false, and I have not yet developed a good sense of when to believe you and when not.) -- no digital SLR (at least not at time of this writing -- 03/2003) -- no IS, USM, AF teleconverters or AF extension tubes -- lack of tripod collars on lenses that deserve it: K 200/2.5, A* 200/2.8, FA* 200/2.8, K/M*/A* 300/4, FA* 300/4.5... -- desirable products lag about 5 years: FA20-35/4, FA24-90/3.5-4.5, FA28-105/3.2-4.5, modern flash features -- virtually all FA lenses are cheaply built (the FA* are very good) -- the second-hand market is VERY small: the good stuff is difficult to find, there are lots of people who want it, and it is expensive - top-of-the-line Pentax = serious amateur from the other manufacturers (for example MZ-S = Canon 30/Elan 7e) - the good new gear is more expensive than from the competition - limited support for modern flash operation: only two bodies support flash compensation, high-speed flash, wireless flash - the K, M, LX and A bodies are getting old. Buying a second-hand body is often a game of luck - the LX needs expensive and competent service - all silver lenses, including the expensive FA* ones can be easily scratched, and the scratches look really bad - the older bodies cannot control the F-type flashes - mechanical K-mount coupling somewhat slow and unprecise - few shops carry Pentax gear - Total points: -6 (-4 if the *ist D really comes to the shops) Canon EOS = +++ leading technology: USM, IS, DO, E-TTL, AF teleconverters, AF extension tubes ++ top lenses in every focal length ++ just about every imaginable lens is available; most primes available in two versions (with two max. apertures) ++ unique features: tilt-shift lenses, bodies silent-drive mode, eye-control, FTM (manual-focusing-override of AF at any time) ++ very serious in the digital-SLR area and in the pro world in general + 50% of the entire EOS system is available on eBay at any time; 90% can be seen within a month + second-hand items available at top prices + most lenses are very-well built; the L lenses are superb + most lenses with f = 200 mm have tripod collars + focusing motor is in the lens: the best-fitting motor can be chosen, and can be placed at the optimal position within the lens + electronic aperture control: the aperture can be placed anywhere in the lens, no mechanical coupling, very fast and precise + all photo stores carry many Canon products + top support from the 3rd-party manufacturers -- no support for FD bodies or lenses (there exists an adapter, but you lose so many features, it's not worth it) -- flare is not very well controlled -- the better bodies and lenses are generally larger and heavier; the amateur stuff is actually smaller than Pentax: Rebel
Re: Good-bye Pentax (2)
Hi Roland, Do you remember the time about three weeks? Pentax had said full compatibility for the *ist, and everyone was talking about how his personal Pentax sources were confirming that. Pentax-Europe's marketing director had confirmed it, and I was still not believing it because it was not fitting together with several technical observations of mine. It turned out that they were all wrong. I see how passionate you are about this, and I respect your choice. However, I do not share your optimism, and I have some technical reasons in my head. But the *ist D will have full compatibility with the older lenses. This we have only seen on paper, just like we saw similar texts about the *ist. The only HARD evidence (the early prototypes at PMA and CeBit) show the contrary. Now, I am quite certain that the prototype at PMA is a different one from the one at CeBit, and both featured the crippled mount. Are you feeling small waves of coldness on your back? I am... For the *ist D I have good-heartedly indicated Kaf2 on the KMP, but I could actually imagine how Pentax is thinking: those people have been raving for a DSLR for years. How about we save $5 on the aperture coupling and $5 on aperture rings, and they all go out and replace those fabulous 15/3.5, 18/3.5, 20/4, etc. lenses with FAJ equivalents... I hold that for unlikely but very possible. If the lens mount in the *ist D, with full compatibility for K and M lenses, scremount lenses (with adapter), 645 (with adapter) and 67 (with adapter) are crippled mount, then why would this be a bad thing? The crippled mount cannot meter properly with K and M lenses. Either part 1 of your statement is true or part 2 but not both. My explanation is that someone re-edited the MZ-D press release, updating the text hier and there. Compare the Lens compatibility sections fo both press releases... Not true. It's possible to make a full electronic lens mount with aperture ring on the lenses. One simply has to have a mechanical to electrical decoder for the aperture ring in the lenses, so that the lens can send aperture ring information to the body. Now read your statement a few times loud and ask yourself how likely that is... This might be what Pentax are working on. It's probably less expensive to have electrical decoders around the aperture ring instead of a complete mechanical system. I am no expert but consider myself relatively compentent about the workings of the Pentax mounts. What you are saying sounds unreasonable to me, and I hold it for unlikely. Having said all this, I realize that neither of us has hard facts, so until we hear new definitive information, this will be my last e-mail on the subject. Piece, Boz
Good-bye Pentax (2)
Hi all, thank you very much for the nice answers to my previous mail! It is a really special feeling to know that I have done something worthwhile, and I am deeply moved that you all appreciate my work to such an extent. I took no offense to the one or two mails that spoke about the results count, Canon is a gadget maker, don't worry. I actually expected more resistance... :-) What can I say? It was not an easy decision, and I have been contemplating it for over a year now. I have thought about it long and hard, and have had several (heated) discussions with PDML members Arnold Stark and Knut Kampe. But in the end even Arnold's strongest and solid arguments could not overpower my will to move on. The real turn came when I recently decided that I want to try photographing birds and animals (nothing exotic, creatures in our garden or in the zoo). The only lens that I was able to afford was a second-hand 400/5.6, and it had to be AF. I have never seen a used FA* 400/5.6, so I look at eBay for a Canon. Well, in the last 6 weeks there have been 8 of them for sale, and I got mine at a wonderful price. Adding a body and a flash was a breeze, so I was all set. Let's say it like this: My only Pentax experience with longer lenses was a day-trip with Arnold where I got to use his K 400/5.6 and M42-K 500/4.5. Those photos were a disaster! Manual aperture were manual focus too much for me!!! Using the EOS 30 with the 400/5,6 USM is much more convenient. I can dial in exp. comp. via the thumb dial in the back, flash exp. comp on the flash, AF is very fast, and can see well even through the small AF-type viewfinder. Program shift is very convenient via the index-finger dial, and the eye-control AF gimmick work wonderfully for me! So, where are those that say that better technology does not lead to better photos? Yes, each photo made with the greatest USM, IS, etc. lens can be made also without. But the chances of doing that are almost non-existent! So, the main factors are: - Canon has a more complete AF system - Canon delivers new products and technologies faster - it is far easier and more cost-effective to buy (second-hand) Canon gear (for example, I will soon be able to buy a like-new second-hand D60 for about $800) - one has certain security that one can never outgrow the Canon system - counting from 1986 until now, Canon actually has better system compatibility than Pentax, and there is NO INDICATION that will have to change their mount any time soon (Pentax is moving towards a mount change [at least simplification]. The *ist does NOT work properly with K and M lenses, and it is NOT an entry-level camera --- it has the best AF system of ANY Pentax camera!) Now, where is Pentax? I feel that they have slowly but surely abandoned the market segment in which I am -- serious amateur. If we ignore the brilliant FA* 200-600/5.6, they don't have much for sports or wild-life professionals either. They seem to be concentrating in the segment of *ist and below. I have nothing against that, but I wish Pentax would come out and say if my assumption is correct, or they are simply lacking the money/people/resources to develop things faster. In the end, it is all very simple. I feel that very few serious amateurs and professionals use Pentax gear, and therefore the few serious Pentax items do not sell very well. This then leads to Pentax not investing very much in development of such items, and more serious amateurs and professionals switch to other brands. It's a vicious circle, and I am the real loser. So I switched... But like I said, I'll keep an LX, FE-1, two bright screens, a 17/4 fish, A20/2.8, A24/2.8, K30/2.8, A50/1.7, and A100/2.8 Macro. Sad as it may be, soon after my current eBay auctions are over, I will also sell the superA, MZ-5n, battery pack Fg, M24-35/3.5 and FA 24-90/3.5-4.5. Once again, thanks for all your positive remarks and nice comments to my previous mail. Cheers, Boz -- _\\|//_ Imagination is more important than knowledge... 0(` O-O ')0 A. Einstein ===ooO=(_)=Ooo=== Bojidar D. Dimitrov author and editor, Pentax K-Mount web page [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://kmp.BDimitrov.de/ = __ __
Re: Stupid question about M lens on *ist
Hi Roland, I don't know how this is done, since when holding a lens in the air and turning aperture - the aperture closes down. But on the *ist, this does not happen. There is nothing special with the *ist. It's like this on any camera. If you REALLY want to know look at the KMP -- Technology -- K-Mount Opetation --- K-mount. Cheers, Boz
Re: Stupid question about M lens on *ist
Hi Steve, see, I'm not gone yet... 3:-) Stupid question. I've read that an M lens on the *ist will only meter wide open. If the camera can't talk to the lens, how does it know what wide open is? and if its reading the light coming through the lens, why won't stopping down affect metering? Take a lens in your hand. Set it to f/16. Look through it to make sure that the aperture blades are closed. Not mount the lens on a camera body. Look through the lens again. The aperture blades are not there, since the body has opened the aperture. Now, set the exposure time to about 1/4 second or so. Make a picture while looking through the lens. See how the aperture blades closed for a/4 second? Now think about it. The camera meters before the shot WHILE THE APERTURE IS OPEN. While the image is being taken the aperture is closed. A _REAL_ camera meters through the open lens but calculates how much the lens will close and adjusts the exposure time (makes it longer). The *ist lacks one of the aperture couplings, so it doesn't know how much the lens will close during the exposure. It doesn't recalculate the exposure time and the image is underexposed. If the lens was, by chance, set to its maximum aperture, the error is 0 EV, and the image is properly exposed. HTH, Boz
Good-bye Pentax (was: Pentax needs USM and IS)
Hi Roland, hi all, Roland Mabo wrote: Choosing SLR, is choosing a system. Those who wish to use the SLR primarly for ps photography doesn't bother, but those who are serious about learning photography - who sees photography as an art, as a hobby or as an income - thinks about SLR as a system. I certainly do, and as much as I like Pentax bodies (LX, superProgram, ZX-5n), I am not convinced by Pentax's system. I chose a superProgram with a couple of A lenses when I was a student, and I still believe that for a limited budget Pentax is a great solution. There is plenty of second-hand gear and it is good, small, light, and inexpensive. BUT... when I started getting serious and ready to spend some more cash, I started watching with great envy those Canon and Nikon users. Now, I am a technical head more than an artist, so I was fascinated by things like USM, IS, AF eye-control, etc. Still, this was not enough to make me switch. I am a cost-conscious person, so I like to buy second-hand, and I do not go for the big profi items. But recently I started wanting a longer lens as well as a reasonable 70-200 lens, and found that I cannot really buy them from Pentax. Yes, they do have the FA* 300/2.8, FA* 400/5.6 and FA* 80-200/2.8, but I was not willing to buy them new, and I could not find them used. At the same time I wondered if I have confidence to even spend that money on a company that since 1984 has steadily but surely been falling behind the competition. A company whose most recent big-ticket item (the MZ-S) has been a flop (at least in my eyes and from a sales point-of-view), and a company that in the end of Feb 2003 still had no DSLR. So I started looking at Canon and Nikon more and more seriously. After I edjucated myself a bit about new names, series, compatibility, etc., I started having a rather sick feeling that I will be leaving Pentax soon. I bought an EOS 30 (Elan 7e) and the top-rated lenses EF 70-200/4 USM L and 28-105/3.5-4.5 USM. What can I say, I wasn't feeling sick anymore. USM may be seen just as a gimmick by some on this list, but USM lenses have full-time manual and allow the photographer to reach in and readjust the focus at any time, without having to switch or slide levers. The build quality is absolutely fantastic, and the manual focus feel is at least as good as that of an A-series lens. I have not spent the money on an IS lens yet, but I have the option, if I ever have the money. So I was not feeling sick any more... Just at that time the first news of the *ist and *ist D came out, and I was almost ready to abandon my plans to switch. After all, Pentax showed some new products, and they looked good! But after the euphory settled down, I took a critical look and had a sick feeling once again. I wasn't sure if my good old K and M lenses will work with the *ist, and the new Pentax lenses wern't itneresting at all. After all, I am happy with 2 bodies, but I want LENSES. And the Pentax's AF offerings are either too expensive for me (I must buy them new) or they are not there. At the same time they represent late 1980's and early 1990's technology. Add to that Canon's news about the 10D DSLR along with a (theoretically) perfect wide-angle zoom (17-40/4 USM), and I felt certain that my choice of a new system was the right one. I wish Pentax all the best, and I hope they stay in the game. That way Canon will have one more competitor, and may some day learn how to make smaller and lighter bodies and lenses. Now, back to reality. I will go on working on the KMP, and will try to improve it and make it more complete and more informative. I will also hang around on the PDML for few more weeks, at least. Best wishes to all and thanks for all I've learned from you! To all KMP contributors most sincere thanks! Bojidar Dimitrov -- _\\|//_ Imagination is more important than knowledge... 0(` O-O ')0 A. Einstein ===ooO=(_)=Ooo=== Bojidar D. Dimitrov author and editor, Pentax K-Mount web page [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://kmp.BDimitrov.de/ = __ __
Winder ME and A-series bodies
Hi all, I have virtually never used a motor or a winder, so I am relatively ignorant in this area. I received a question from a KMP reader, if the Winder ME (not the ME II) works properly with the programPlus. On the Winders KMP page I say that the ME and ME II winders work with all A bodies. But on the A-bodies pages I only list the ME II winder. Does anyone know? Thanks in advance, Boz
Re: Why I don't believe in the KAF3 mount on *ist D (resent)
Hi Roland, Roland Mabo wrote: I still believe in KAF3 mount in the *ist D, the one that they will produce. Pentax has *not* said what the lens mount type is. A sceptic might say that there is no Kaf3 mount in the works. He might then add that Pentax is not saying because they are not sure if it will be the crippled Kaf or Kaf2 without power-zoom. I am tipping towards the crippled Kaf. :-( Cheers, Boz
Re: *ist and the lens mount
Hi Roland, Roland Mabo wrote: For example, I have a M 28 f/2.8. I want to use it on the *ist, because of the lovely character the M 28 has. Now, I set the lens at f/2.8 and the *ist displays a shutter speed of 1/125. But I don't want to use it at f/2.8, I want more depth-of-field. I want to use it at f/8, so I set it to f/8 - and the lens stops down (instant depth-of-field) and I set the shutter to 1/15 so I get a correct exposure. Now I fire the shutter. I do not think that this is correct. The lens will stay open even if you select f/8, but the camera will not know this so it will meter as if the lens is set to f/2.8. So you need to manually override the 1/125 with 1/15. Cheers, Boz
Re: KAF3 lens mount already here?
Hi Matti, Matti Etelapera wrote: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0303/pma2003/pentax/istd-lensmount.jpg In this picture the FAJ 18-35mm seems to have atleast a mechanical diaphragm actuator. Yes, but this is an absolute must. We are talking about the diaphragm coupling, which enables correct metering with all lenses when their aperture ring is set away from the A setting. See http://KMP.BDimitrov.de/technology/K-mount/K.html Cheers, Boz
Re: KAF3 lens mount already here?
Hi Mark, Mark Roberts wrote: Boz must have incredibly powerful leg muscles by now... From jumping to conclusions, ya know. Hey, how'd ya know? Please see my previous mail to Arnold Stark where I list the reasons why I beliebe what I believe. Cheers, Boz
Re: KAF3 lens mount already here?
Hi, Pål Jensen wrote: Mark wrote: Boz must have incredibly powerful leg muscles by now... From jumping to conclusions, ya know. Well maybe he doesn't jump to conclusion but have gotten the same information I have. Actually, I have not gotten any information from anyone. I was simply thinking out loud... Cheers, Boz
Re: KAF3 lens mount already here?
Hi, Bruce Rubenstein wrote: In the most recent 15 year period (1987 - 2003), Canon has had complete, and better compatibility, than Nikon, Minolta or Pentax. The Canon EF mount was designed to transfer information electronically and not back fitted to do so. There is no reason to think that they will change their mount in the next 5, or 10 years. I agree 100% here. Canon changed their mount in 1986, and left their users then in the dark. However, they switched to a very large, progressive and flexible mount, and there are no reasons to believe that they will change it again. After all, the mount is fully electronic, and all changes will be in software (theoretically). In fact, even the oldest EOS bodies can control the newest USM lenses, and vice versa. IS is probably not supported by the oldest bodies, and the oldest bodies cannot control the newest flashes. But the newst bodies can control all flashes. Cheers, Boz
Re: KAF3 lens mount already here?
Hi Arnold, Arnold Stark wrote: One more thought: Maybe we are all right, and the *ist works with K- and M-lenses, but only with stop-down metering? I don't think so. Stop-down metering indicates that the lens lacks the mechanical aperture coupling. For example, if the aperture is deep into a tele lens, it is normally too complex to create a mechanical coupling between the aperture and the lens mount. This is why the Pentax shift lens has manual aperture and Canon's has fully automatic --- because they lead the aperture signals with flexible wires to the aperture-control mechanism which sits in front of the tilt-shift mechanism. The problem with the newset Pentax bodies is that the body is not able to read the aperture selected by the lens. It assumes widest aperture, and if you stop down 2 EV, the camera overexposes by 2 EV. I cannot imageine how much weight or money Pentax is saving by this, but it must be significant, since they have at least tree bodies with that mount (MZ/ZX 30, 50, 60). Cheers, Boz
Re: New lenses (was Re: KAF3 lens mount already here?)
Hi Valentin, Caveman wrote: So where's that killer portrait lens? I was looking hard and my best bet was the 100/2.8 macro. Does it have to be Pentax? If not, try the Canon EF 100/2 USM. Killer performance, and available twice a week from eBay.de for about EUR 375. Cheers, Boz
Re: KAF3 lens mount already here?
Hi Arnold et al, Boz wrote: Conclusion: K and M equipment is obsolete. K and M buyers should buy Limited equipment (these people want good mechanical build, and nowadays that costs money). :-( I wrote the above as a SPECULATION, and I ask you to treat it as such. Until this time noone has solid facts, so your guess is as good as mine. Arnold Stark wrote: Boz, you keep repeating the same wrong speculation, so I will quote again what Pentax USA writes: This is what they write on the *ist: Usable lenses - Pentax KAF2-(power zoom not available), KAF-, KA- and K-mount lenses (Autofocus possible with KA- and K-mount lenses using AF adapter) They write more. Something about shutter lock, function 17, etc. Anyhow, as the creator of the KMP, please give me a bit of credit for being able to understand a bit of the logic behind the system. Like I said, the above thought is a speculation, but it is based on a few facts: - the *ist is designed from the ground up to be as small and light as possible, and probably as cheap as posible. I hold it for entirely possible that Pentax removed the aperturecoupling to save weight and size. - the talk about shutter lock when the aperture is not A. enable with CF 17. Some of you say that this is for protecting beginners. From what? if the camera works fully and completely, what are they being protected from? The only logical thought is that with CF 17 = 0 the *ist works like MZ-60 and with CF17 = 1 it works like MZ-50. - Pentax has released quite a few bodies lately with a crippled mount - Pentax releases lenses without aperture rings (hence without that aperture coupling) together with the *ist, and calls them perfect match. This is what they write on The *ist D: Compatible lenses: K, KA, KAF, and KAF2 mount lenses See the KMP. I have indicated that the *ist D features the Kaf2 mount. I wrote this before seeing the image of the *ist D mount where the aperture coupling is missing. I am not sure what I would have written then... The compatibility of *ist and *ist D with K- and M lenses has been confirmed by serveral sources including Pentax Germany. This same source that you are talking about has told me that he could imagine that in the future Pentax could remove the aperture rings. He/she didn't say from all lenses, I grant you that. The latter source also expressed the expectation that FA-J will be limited to the cheapest price segment. The latter source could not say anthing about a new film body or DSLR a month ago. I would say that this source has simply read the press-releases himself, and repeats what he/she has read. I am not fully sure if a person in that position knows the technical operation of the mount as well as you and I do... Also, in the process of piecingtogether the KMP I have come across SO MANY wrong and inconsistent writings by Pentax (for items in production, mind you), that I will not be surprised by anything any more. Let's go to CeBit and put an end to all this speculation! You are planning to go. Bring your favorite K-mount lens, and test things out! CeBit is already running... Cheers, Boz
Re: KAF3 lens mount already here?
Hi Arnold, The lens then would stop down to the selected aperture and the camera could measure the amount of light regardless of what the selected f-number is. If this would only happen while the release button of the camera were pressed half-way down, you would get shutter speed and DOF-information right then, and I wouldn't mind working with such a camera. I now understand what you mean, and it seems very plausible. Cheers, Boz
Re: KAF3 lens mount already here?
Hi Ken, Are you still talking to me?3:-) KT Takeshita wrote: When Pentax try to make camera bodies as small as possible, as they seem to be doing now, focus motor and mechanical aperture coupling etc would have nowhere to go and might be squeezed out of the body, ending up somewhere in the lens barrel :-). Unfortunately, this would mean bigger, heavier, and more expensive lenses... Removing that clumsy focus drive shaft penetrating through the lens barrel alone will give the lens designer so much freedom to design better lenses (I suppose). This is one reason why Canon has introduced some lenses unmatched by the others. With the EF mount, both the aperture and the AF controls are transferred via flexible wires, so you can place the zoom ring, focusing ring and aperture mechanism anywhere you want within the lens, and you don't have to worry about how you would manage the mechanical coupling with the body (like Pentax and Nikon must do). Plus an electronic aperture control is inherently faster, more precise, and less failure-prone than a mechanical one. Hope this is the direction they are going to, and the rumoured new series of lenses planned for the fall announcement would be just that :-). For this I am less than optimistic... I do not believe in such a move anyway, but we are now seeing a new lens and camera series, new body chasis, and you would think, won't you, that if such a radical change were coming, they would make the switch all at once? Cheers, Boz
Re: Hands up and be counted
zoomshot wrote: So, how many of you merry people are going to get an *ist-D and if not why not? Here is what I am thinking of doing... I will probably keep a superA with A20/2.8, A24/2.8, K30/2.8, A50/1.4 and A100/2.8 Macro, and will sell the (few) other Pentax items that I own. I will then by the Canon 10D and their new 17-40/4 L USM lens. This will add to my new EOS 30 and 70-200/4 L USM, and I will have a perfect manual-focus system (Pentax), film-based AF system (Canon) and a digital AF system (Canon). I'm a happy clam!!! I LIKE THE *ist D _BODY_ BETTER, BUT I AM NOT IMPRESSED WITH PENTAX'S CURRENT AF LINE-UP. Sorry if I stepped on anyone's toes... Best wishes, Boz -- _\\|//_ Imagination is more important than knowledge... 0(` O-O ')0 A. Einstein ===ooO=(_)=Ooo=== Bojidar D. Dimitrov author and editor, Pentax K-Mount web page [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://kmp.BDimitrov.de/ = __ __
OT: Vacation
Hi, I will be away from computers until March 10. I will surely will get most news with much delay, but that's life... Cheers, Boz
Re: *ist Custom Functions list
Hi Alexander, alexanderkrohe wrote: I am wondering too who brought this up. There is nothing in the press release that allows this conclusion: in contrast they explicitly state that the K-lenses are usable. Probably I did. I read the following at www.dpreview.com and then at Pentax USA: http://www.pentaxusa.com/news/news_display.cfm?pressid=149 Lens Mount Type - Metal, PENTAX KAF bayonet mount Usable lenses - Pentax KAF2-(power zoom not available), KAF-, KA- and K-mount lenses (Autofocus possible with KA- and K-mount lenses using AF adapter). When the aperture ring is set at other than A position, release lock or unlock selectable by Custom function No.17 So, it is still my conclusion that the *ist will not support K and M lenses. Seems to me that the break-down of the public education systems is world-wide phenomenon (oops not a political list you say ... ) I'm pretty satisfied with my education, thank you very much! Boz -- _\\|//_ Imagination is more important than knowledge... 0(` O-O ')0 A. Einstein ===ooO=(_)=Ooo=== Bojidar D. Dimitrov author and editor, Pentax K-Mount web page [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://kmp.BDimitrov.de/ = __ __
Re: *Ist compromised? (WAS: Re: Re[2]: We have overlooked Optio33L!)
Hi, Pål Jensen wrote: Alin wrote: Sorry to be carried away - I'm especially bitter about this point after seeing how Pentax embraced this trend with the overspecified but heavily compromised *ist. Heanily compromised? I think not! Even if the more pessimistic price estimate is correct, the *Ist doesn't seem compromised to me considering what it costs. It is a very comprehensively specified camera with almost all features you can think of. But without support K and M lenses! Sure, you can make the shutter operate (via that custom function), but the meter won't meter properly! You were claiming a few days ago that the FAJ phenomenon is only for the lowest ranks... Cheers, Boz
Re: *ist will work with K and M lenses
Hi Mark, Mark Roberts wrote: I have it from a source at Pentax that the camera *does* support K lenses. If you turn off that PF 17, it supports them as much as the MZ-30 or MZ-60 -- no support at all. If you turn on the function, it supports them as much as the MZ-50 --- the shutter operates, the light meter not. Cheers, Boz
Re: FS: MZ-S, KX, lots of lenses
Hi Tom, I'm going digital, and will post here before going to ebay this weekend. Which way are you going? Cheers, Boz
Re: *ist will work with K and M lenses
Hi Arnold, Arnold Stark wrote: Bojidar Dimitrov schrieb: If you turn off that PF 17, it supports them as much as the MZ-30 or MZ-60 -- no support at all. If you turn on the function, it supports them as much as the MZ-5 --- the shutter operates, the light meter not. How do you know? According to dpreview.com: Usable Lenses: PENTAX KAF2- (power zoom not available) and KAF- mount lenses PENTAX KA mount lenses (AF available with optional AF adapter) When the aperture ring is set at other than A position, release lock or unlock selectable by Custom function No.17 OK, let's read again s-l-o-w-l-y: When the aperture ring is set at other than A position, release lock means to me like the MZ-30/60. or unlock selectable by Custom function No.17 means to me like the MZ-50. Maybe I'm overly pessimistic, but then again, I just bought a Canon EOS 30, same as the Elan 7e.:-) Cheers, Boz
Re: Panorama switch on Z-70 and PZ70
Hi Sylwester, On Sun, 16 Feb 2003, Juey Chong Ong wrote: I am staring at my PZ-70 right now and there is a panorama switch on it. I've even used it once. Could it be, that it is Z-70 with date back? I wonder if these Z-series date backs could have panorama function and switch? You might be right, as this is exactly the case with the MZ-10/ZX-10. Unfortunately, I do not have enough data to really get a clear picture... Cheers, Boz
Re: FS: MX and KX
Hi, Doesn't Boz list them on his site? If not, I wouldn't know where to look but perhaps someone else will reply. http://kmp.BDimitrov.de/ - [Focusing] - [focusing screens] Cheers, Boz
Re: Panorama switch on Z-70 and PZ70
Hi, thanks to all who responded to my query on the Z-70/PZ-70 cameras! It seems that the Z-70 does not have a panorama switch, but the PZ-70 does. Neither Z-70p nor PZ-70p seem to exist. Cheers, Boz
Viewfinders on KX, KM, and K1000
Hi, Those that have a manual for either of the above cameras, please check out what the manual says about viewfinder magnification ratio and coverage. I also need the depth of the KX body without a lens attached. And let me be optimistic, the weight of the KX-motor and KM-motor bodies would be great to have too... Thanks in advance, Boz -- _\\|//_ Imagination is more important than knowledge... 0(` O-O ')0 A. Einstein ===ooO=(_)=Ooo=== Bojidar D. Dimitrov author and editor, Pentax K-Mount web page [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://kmp.BDimitrov.de/ = __ __
Does the PZ-20 have a panorama switch?
Hi, it seems that the some PZ-?? bodies have the panorama switch but not the small p at the end of the designation. Is the PZ-20 one of them? Thanks in advance, Boz
Do the Z-20p and Z-70p exist?
Hi, Has anyone ever seen a Z-20p or a Z-70p camera in existance? I know that the Z-20 and Z-20p exist, but the question here is about models with a small p at the end of the name... Thanks in advance, Boz
Re: Question for the AF guys?
Hi, Rob Studdert wrote: On 13 Feb 2003 at 20:16, Bruce Dayton wrote: Another difference is that when using manual focus and the matte area, I can compose and focus in any order - using AF I have to lock focus and recompose. I tend to get better composition when not using AF. Doesn't mean you can't, just that my percentage is better with manual focus. That's my experience too, AF really upsets my work-flow. Maybe the thing you guys need is a combination of two more focusing points, eye-controlled AF-sensor selection and full-time manual override? Just a thought... Boz
Re: If Pentax just made _ONE_ real, old-style Pentax...
Hi, From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'd buy an LX. Christian Skofteland wrote: After all your grumblings about it's reliability? ;-) Yep, my thought exactly. I have a newest-style LX which has been to Pentax twice, and it still ain't 100% healthy. Pentax tells me that uneven exposure within one frame is due to my lenses... Seriously, I wish I had had the money and contacts to buy an LX2000 or one of the last LX's sold in Japan. To me (reliability aside, because, knock on wood, I haven't had any issues with mine) the LX is what a camera should be. Theoretically, the LX is what a camera should be. But practically, it is a high-maintenance-never-know-if-it-will-work-OK camera. I have asked Pentax Germany to find me an LX2000, and they can't. All are gone. Boz
Re: Cheap SLRs, WAS: K and M lenses are now obsolete!!! (was: FAJlenses)
Hi, Pål Jensen wrote: A couple of years back we didn't know where Pentax was going. After whining on this list and Pentax lists in Japan, Pentax have deliberately leaked out where they are going in order to please the fan base. 1. I am not talking about leaks. I am talking about a clear published statement with reasons for their choice and with a rough time-schedule of future products. 2. Pentax has not leaked any information to me... You keep writing pompous mails on this list pretending to know something, and you know just as little as we all do. Your secret sources have proven themselves to be no more reliable than looking into a crystal ball. I require a clear statement (from Pentax, not from you). The short version of their philosophy is continuous concentration of the low end market, more emphasis on niche, enthusiast products (like the MZ-S and the Limited lenses), continue supporting their MF systems and full force ahead into digital, including DSLR's. This is neither a philosophy nor a strategy. This is more like randomly running in different directions, trying to make a buck from all sides. No wonder so few NEW customers invest seriously in Pentax (I am not talking about the MZ-60 buyers here)... Cheers, Boz -- _\\|//_ Imagination is more important than knowledge... 0(` O-O ')0 A. Einstein ===ooO=(_)=Ooo=== Bojidar D. Dimitrov author and editor, Pentax K-Mount web page [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://kmp.BDimitrov.de/ = __ __
Re: Cheap SLRs
Hi Gregory, Thanks for making my point better than I did! Greetings from a Boilermaker, Boz Keith Whaley said: If they did, why ever would they tell you? Or, if you want, us? Gregory L. Hansen wrote: Because a broad business strategy usually isn't sensitive information. Everyone already knows they make cameras! Because it's the sort of thing that investors will want to know about. Because it could reassure current Pentax users that are threatening to jump to Nikon when FAJ lenses are introduced. Because it could encourage manufacturers of third-party equipment, and a large pool of third-party equipment does make a brand more attractive to new customers despite some possible lost sales of lenses and accessories. Because if they have professionals in mind they could start building awareness of their brand. All it might take is for some rag like Business Week to interview a corporate officer. Specific products and launch dates can be sensitive. But which direction you want to take the business is the sort of thing that's usually pretty public, or at least the sort of thing that doesn't matter much to competitors. What would Canon do if they learned Pentax was going to release IS lenses, produce some of their own? Try harder to make their lenses better? Come on... -- _\\|//_ Imagination is more important than knowledge... 0(` O-O ')0 A. Einstein ===ooO=(_)=Ooo=== Bojidar D. Dimitrov author and editor, Pentax K-Mount web page [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://kmp.BDimitrov.de/ = __ __
Re: End of K-mount?
Hi, [...] Granted they have released a 70-200 f2.8 IF-ED G lens, I don't think most Nikon owners are worried that Nikon will abandon the F-mount Nikon has already abandoned the old F-mount. Or is your idea of full compatibility having to buy the F-100 (price $1000+) ? If Pentax goes along the same way (and they must, if they are to compete with Nikon and Canon), then our K and M lenses are doomed. Cheers, Boz
Panorama switch on Z-70 and PZ-70
Hi all, I have just learned that the PZ-70 (no 'p' in the camera's name) features a panorama switch. Could it be that the Z-70 also has the panorama format, and that the Z-70p does not exist at all? Owners of any of these cameras (Z-70, Z-70p, PZ-70, PZ-70p), please check and let me know: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TIA, Boz
Re: Cheap SLRs, WAS: K and M lenses are now obsolete!!! (was: FAJlenses)
Hi Mike, Mike Johnston wrote: It is to be hoped that Pentax will not move towards making all new lenses with no aperture ring. But when many dealers are successfully selling inexpensive SLRs with one or two zooms in preference to actual point-and-shoots, that's a good thing--and it's smart for Pentax to encourage its dealers to sell real Pentax lenses as opposed to independent offerings. More money in Pentax's pockets. I guess that this is my real fear. If Pentax chooses to compete in this segment only or primarily, then I as an involved amateur have nothing more to take from Pentax. I wouldn't even be too sad (there are nice offerings form other manufacturers), but Pentax should come out and say what their strategy for the future is!!! Cheers, Boz -- _\\|//_ Imagination is more important than knowledge... 0(` O-O ')0 A. Einstein ===ooO=(_)=Ooo=== Bojidar D. Dimitrov author and editor, Pentax K-Mount web page [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://kmp.BDimitrov.de/ = __ __
Pentax, wake up! (was: K and M lenses are now obsolete)
Hi Arnold, So maybe it really is better not to unveil product news until the products can really be bought. PATHETIC SECTION I believe that a company should have a strategic vision for the future. At least this is what all those economics and management books say. I believe that once you have a vision and you have checked with your engineers and accountants that it will hold, you should share your vision with your customers. Those that support you should have confidence in your vision. /PATHETIC SECTION I see lenses as way more important that bodies. Some of us have thousands (some have tens of thousands) of $ invested in K-mount glass, and they hope to use it as long as they breathe. If one day (and I do hope to live a few decades more) I cannot buy a new camera body that supports my investment, then I will feel betrayed. We live in fast and uncertain times, and I wish that Pentax would come out and say if they want to play and where they will take the game. I believe that Pentax will be faithful to the k-mount as long as they will produce SLRs. I think Pentax is very aware that compatibility is their very strength. I hope you are right. But I have this fear that Pentax might decide to concentrate in the FAJ segment of the SLR market (because like you all say, this is where they make money). Canon earns its name with pro foto equipment and makes money with office equipment. Pentax does not have a big partner to cover up the bills, so they need to make money with each camera and lens that they release. Now, guess which camera has a higher return on investment, the MZ-30 or the MZ-S? Or an LX-AF? Maybe you should tell Pentax clearly what you want. OK, I am allowed to dream... - silent and fast AF and IS for lenses over 85 mm focal length - a nice compromise between high-quality and reasonable price (for me the limited lenses are too expensive) - a system where I can freely mount my lenses on a film-based AF body, a digital body or a mechanical manual-focus body (one that is realiable and not 20 years old) - teleconverters and extension rings that preserve all lens functions, including AF - removable tripod mounts on every teleconverter and every serious lens with focal length of 200 mm and above Let me dream a bit further... - most photo stores should support my brand of choice so that I can try out a piece of equipment before I spend $1000 on it - a large user base so that I can buy some products second-hand I am beginning to wake up. Just three more quick dreams... - a high-quality 24mm tilt and shift lens - a high quality 70-210/4 AF lens with a tripod mount - a 400/4 AF lens and a 1.4x AF teleconverter I have a dream! Boz -- _\\|//_ Imagination is more important than knowledge... 0(` O-O ')0 A. Einstein ===ooO=(_)=Ooo=== Bojidar D. Dimitrov author and editor, Pentax K-Mount web page [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://kmp.BDimitrov.de/ = __ __
Re: PDMLDSLR
Hi, Mike Johnston wrote: [...] The day is fast approaching when no more film flagships will be coming down the pike at all. [...] BTW (sorry if this news is redundant) Leica has just announced the discontinuation of the M6 (in its various forms) after 18 years. Well, that doesn't mean much. The M7 is their new film-based offering, and it supercedes the M6 in several areas. Cheers, Boz
Re: Ten new cameras to be announced!!!!
Alin Flaider wrote: To bent a quote, 2003 will be an exciting year or Pentax will not be at all... Sadly, I agree with this... Cheers, Boz
Re: New Thread - Air Travel and film
Oliver Raymond wrote: THIS IS A DAMN THREAD ON GETTING THROUGH CUSTOMS AND SECURITY SCANS WITH LOADED FILM. LEAVE YOUR DAMN GEOPOLITICAL MEWLING OUT OF THIS. R-e-l-a-x, friend... RIGHT TRACK? Stopping idiots who want to blow up planes in mid flight? I presume you condone international terrorism then? Such checks didn't do much to stop the terrorists on 9-11, nor did they do much to stop earlier ones. Where the HELL are YOU from anyway? This has very little to with anything, but if it helps you, Alin is Romanian, I am Bulgarian. Boz
Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67
Hi Heiko, Just a few quick notes... I've just read it. I just read all of it too. I think, that Michael is right, when he says that the digital workflow is better for him. It is faster and the results are perfect to a certain paper size. These are my thoughts too. BUT - this comparisons has some inconsistencies: Keep in mind, and he says it a few times, he is comparing real-world results. - he chooses not the finest grained film but complains about grain - he compares about dust - but wirh ICE on a Nikon Coolscan 8000ED dust is no longer a problem Still, the difference is so dramatic, that I imagine choosing the right film will still have very little effect in the comparisson. As to the ICE technology, I have not kept my knowledge current, but articles about 6 months old were suggesting that while dust is gone, so is sharpness and contrast... - the same picture is compared to a 67 picture at a different magnification - most important (for me): the drum scan shows, that the 67 picture is much better than the Imacon scans that he uses for his comparison. Both of these points have to so with the real world thesis. Are you willing to pay EUR 200 for a drum scan? Will you often make enlargements over 1 meter? Again: I'm impressed of the digital results and I would probably prefer the digital system because of its easier workflow. But the framework of this comparison is determined by digital technologies and it tells nothing about the capabilities of a Pentax 67. Actually, it does, to a big extent. Pure resolution is not the whole story. Getting the picture on paper or to your editor is the key, and overall digital seems to win. Just look at the shelves of most pro photo stores. What you see is medium-format equipment (new or used) at record low prices. And this seems to tell the story. Now, I myself am not going away from film, not soon. Even if I can get great 50x75 digital prints, I can still not see my slides lighting up a large white wall... And until my computer monitor scales up to that size, I will likely still use print film (along with digital). Cheers, Boz
Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67
Pål Jensen wrote: So putting the image through a scanner that cannot do justice to the film is considered real world. With such test procedures you can prove anything by simply putting up test procedures that fits your preconceived ideas on how things should be. If the only possibility to do justice to the film is to scan it at $300 a frame, then I do not consider that real world. FOR ME and MY WALLET, real world is: a) 35 mm slide film, projected b) 35 mm slide film, scanned on a $1000 scanner, printed on a $300 ink jet c) digital image, printed on the $300 ink jet So, no, a drum scan is not real-world for me. Neither is chemical processing of medium format film. YOUR reality may differ... Cheers, Boz
I had a nice day (LX images)
Hi all, I had given up, but thanks to the perceverance of PDML member Arnold Stark, I managed to photograph some of the treasures of Pentax, Germany. This was two hours ago, and the first images are on the KMP. So, my conclusion -- DIGITAL RULES!!! Am I going to leave 35 mm film? No, but digital rules! I have a lot more, but the following should whet your appetite some... http://KMP.BDimitrov.de/bodies/photos/ Cheers, Boz -- _\\|//_ Imagination is more important than knowledge... 0(` O-O ')0 A. Einstein ===ooO=(_)=Ooo=== Bojidar D. Dimitrov author and editor, Pentax K-Mount web page [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://kmp.BDimitrov.de/ = __ __
Re: I had a nice day (LX images)
Hi Heiko, You lucky one. BTW - is there an official possibility to visit Pentax Germany and have a look at their facilities and work? I don't think that the offer any guided tours, but you can always call them and ask. The place is actually rather small, and the photo storage is not in Hamburg but in Brussels. Still, the repair fascility and some display cases have proved most interesting... Great pictures. Especially the LX cuts. But I still wonder who did buy this golden hammer... Pentax bought body from a private person. I guess this is the same person who offered the camera on eBay, and then stopped the auction because he received an independant offer. This was the XM803 body. And why does digital rule?? Did you notice any new digital Pentax cameras there? More input, please...:-) Well, digital rules because of the new possibilities. I was given a few hours to photograph the 50+ items, and I had to get it right. So I took my lighting setup, the Casio QV-4000, and a laptop, and went in. After taking 5-6 pictures, I uploaded them on the laptop, made sure that everything looks good, and then went on. Three minutes after I was done shooting, I could see the images, and I could have diceded to redo some of them. I have not made any big enlargements from the 4 MP camera. But when my goal are images that will be viewed on a computer, I always do them with the digital camera. While at Pentax, I did get to hold the new Optio S and I also saw it taken apart. I did ask about a K-mount digital, and they said that they really have no information... other than Pentax Japan has said that they will show such a camera on the PMA in February and on CEBIT in Hannover. I guess I will make the journey to Hannover this time... Cheers, Boz I did get to play some with the FA* 600/4 mounted on an MZ-S...
Re: WOW! Check Out BOZ's new k-mount site!
Hi Alan, Guess what, I press KMP Main Menu and the old home page came up (once only). Press KMP Main Menu again and 2 navigation bars come up. :o Thanks for pointing that out, (I hope) I've fixed the problem... Cheers, Boz
Re: Simple question of English spelling.
Hi Fred, I think monocular would be be OK, but I think that what he created is now to be used as a loupe Actually, a 58/2 Helios lens with all elements but the front one gone is properly called ... lens. Yes, in the optics sense, it is a simple convex lens (made up of one element). And in the photographic sense, it is a lens with some focal length (probably not 55mm), some aperture (probably not f/2), and aperture and focus rings. Cheers, Boz
My eBay auctions
Hi all, in case anyone is interested, I have put up a few items for auctioning at eBay. A Tokina 20-35/3.5-4.5 II, an MZ-7, and a Motor Drive A are about to go very cheap... Happy New Year to all, Boz -- _\\|//_ Imagination is more important than knowledge... 0(` O-O ')0 A. Einstein ===ooO=(_)=Ooo=== Bojidar D. Dimitrov author and editor, Pentax K-Mount web page [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://kmp.BDimitrov.de/ = __ __
Re: My eBay auctions
Bojidar Dimitrov wrote: in case anyone is interested, I have put up a few items for auctioning at eBay. A Tokina 20-35/3.5-4.5 II, an MZ-7, and a Motor Drive A are about to go very cheap... http://cgi6.ebay.de/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewSellersOtherItemsuserid=bdimitrov
Dental macros
Hi all, We know that the M100/4 and A100/4 dental macro lenses are mechanically and optically identical to the non-dental macros, and that the only difference are the magnification ratios in yellow and and red. But now I am not sure if the word DENTAL is part of the name enscriben on the ring around the front element. Does anyone own one of the two dental lenses? Can you please tell me the exact lens name? Thanks a lot and Happy New Year! Boz
Re: more on ghostless coating [quite long]
Hi, Sylwester wrote: You are right, but it also confirms what I said. Still Bojidar's site needs to be updated, just because almost every new lens (like cheapo FA 35-80/4-5.6) from Pentax features ghostless coating - not only the high end ones. Even older lenses has this coating - just look at FA 28-70/4. Alin Flaider wrote: I wouldn't rely on this when buying a FA 28-70/4. Mine was manufactured several years ago before the first ghostless SMC lens was officially acknowledged, and I doubt very much my sample has the new type of coating (not that it is a flare lagger ;o) ). I suppose this is the case with most batches of this lens, especially that it's been discontinued for some time now. Generally speaking, only the newest batches of the older lenses may be ghostless SMC coated, and there is no way you could know this for a fact before buying, even new. You can only be sure only of the glass released after the 43 limited. So I guess Boz site is less misleading like it is right now. Well, I went to the USA site today, and searched for ghostless. All that came up was: 24-90, 28-105/3.2-4.5, FA35/2, and FA200 Macro. I've updated my internal KMP version. There was also one more match on the USA site, and it was a press-release about the FA35-80/4-5.6 as well as FA100-300/4.7-5.8. Curiously, the ghostless coating was only mentioned on the 35-80 lens, and I assume that this is a mistake. Sylwester, you would not believe how many mistakes there are in these press-releases and product catalogs!!! After the changes that I made today (not yet visible for you guys), I will not modify the KMP until I get some more consvinsing evidence. Cheers, Boz
KMP Update, updated FS list
Hi all, I have just uploaded the next KMP release. You will find mostly small corrections and additions to the Lenses and Teleconverters pages, and some major changes in the Bodies section. Now there is an individual page for each camera body, just like with lenses and teleconverters. I have updated the To Do list, and now it contains every single piece of missing information on bodies, lenses and teleconverters. Do not be shy, take a look, and see if you can help me fill up some of the holes. Finally, I've also updated my For Sale list. There you will now find a black ME F, a black KM, and a K1000 SE. Also a few interesting lenses. And last but not least, I've updated the Authors list to include all those people who have written to me with corrections and additions. Cheers, Boz http://KMP.BDimitrov.de/ http://KMP.BDimitrov.de/TODO.txt http://KMP.BDimitrov.de/for_sale/ -- _\\|//_ Imagination is more important than knowledge... 0(` O-O ')0 A. Einstein ===ooO=(_)=Ooo=== Bojidar D. Dimitrov author and editor, Pentax K-Mount web page [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://kmp.BDimitrov.de/ = __ __
FA20-35/4 AL: ghostless coating, yes or no
Hi, does anyone have some Pentax publication where it is officially stated that the FA 20-35/4 AL lens features the new ghostless coating? Thanks, Boz -- _\\|//_ Imagination is more important than knowledge... 0(` O-O ')0 A. Einstein ===ooO=(_)=Ooo=== Bojidar D. Dimitrov author and editor, Pentax K-Mount web page [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://kmp.BDimitrov.de/ = __ __
Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
Hi Heiko, Actually I'm owning the Tamron-built 28-105 in silver which fits nicely to my MZ-5n. I was just wondering, if it makes sense to buy a MZ-S with a 24-90 or to use a cheaper 28-105 with the MZ-S. Well, my opinion is that bodies matter little. I would turn the question around and ask if any given lens requires a new body. For example, in order to use features of the lens that an older body does not suppert. The AF of the 5n has always been sufficient to me, and I see no reason at all to upgrade to the MZ-S. I am not much of a flash user, however, and the other extra or better features are more or less irrelevant. To me having an LX in addition to the 5n is more important than having an MZ-S. Please let me know, how you judge the lenses in comparison. BTW - the old 28-105 Powerzoom is told to be very good. Did you use one and can you compare it to the other 28-105? I have never used the oldest 28-105, so I cannot comment on it. I read a long commentary from Dario in a recent Spotmatic where he concluded that the 24-90 is very close to or equal to the 24/2, 35/2, 50/? and the FA85/1,4. The older 28-105 was also tested, and it was respectable but the other lenses were noticeably better, especially at wider apertures. Cheers, Boz
Re: K1000: Why a good student camera?
Hi Christian, I'm sure the K1000 is a good basic camera but why do many people think it's a good student camera? I do not think highly of the K1000. I think that the only reason that it is (was?) so puplar with photo students is that it was cheap and available new. So I do not think that it is a good camera, I just state a fact it is popular with students. Photo students were told to get fully manual cameras so that they are forced to learn to shoot manually, and the K1000 fits the bill. It was also plentiful and robust. I do think that the lack of information is a bad thing, and I would take an MX any day over a K1000. But I don't have an MX either. Instead, I am very satisfied with an LX and a ZX-5n. This way I have my choice of AF, TTL flash, DOF preview, spot-metering, mechanical B shutter speed, interchangeable screens and viewfinders, low-light capabilities, etc, etc. BTW, I am currently reworking the Bodies section of the KMP, and will soon need descriptions and subjective evaluations for all bodies. Cheers, Boz -- _\\|//_ Imagination is more important than knowledge... 0(` O-O ')0 A. Einstein ===ooO=(_)=Ooo=== Bojidar D. Dimitrov author and editor, Pentax K-Mount web page [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://kmp.BDimitrov.de/ = __ __
Re: Dust in Lenses
Hi Fred, This is just a hypothesis, but I would guess that non-IF, non-FREE lenses have elements fixed with relation to each-other, so there is no air movin between the glass surfaces. IF and FREE lenses do have elements moving WRT others, so there is also air-flow, and thus an influx of dust. Cheers, Boz
Re: Poll: Telephoto Zooms
Hi Arnold, 1) F*250-600/5.6 EDIF 2) FA80-320/f4.5-5.6 3) K400-600/8-12 Reflex Cheers, Boz
KMP lens info
Hi all, After I started gathering the Pentax 5-digit catalog numbers, I have realized a few things, and since then I have been busy with internal restructuring of the KMP. Here are some obeservations and questions: - There are multiple numbers for a single lens. The numbers usually differ in the last digit: 0 means that the lens was sold with a carrying case, and 7 means that the carrying case was sold separately. - Lenses with different colors have different 5-digit numbers. - Some early K lenses had 4-digit catalog numbers. These four digits are the same ones that later on got the suffix 0 or 7, to indicate if there was a case inclused or not. - Some 5-digit numbers end in 1 or 5, but I do not have enough of those to be able to determine their meaning. Probably it has to do with the hood or the color of the lenses. - What I really want to know is if there are two different catalog numbers for the same lens with two different names. For example, are the catalog number for the SMC Pentax 1:3.5/15 different from that of the SMC Pentax 1:3.5 15mm? - The next KMP release will reflect all these complications, but it will take a few more weeks until I get all this straightened out. More to come later. Cheers, Boz -- _\\|//_ Imagination is more important than knowledge... 0(` O-O ')0 A. Einstein ===ooO=(_)=Ooo=== Bojidar D. Dimitrov author and editor, Pentax K-Mount web page [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://kmp.BDimitrov.de/ = __ __
Re: Boz's photo on eBay auction
Hello John, John Glover wrote: In case anyone wants to gripe to ebay about this. http://cgi3.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?MfcISAPICommand=GetRNSWeb FormShowflag1=0flag2=3flag3=6rcode=52010383100subjecttier1 =Questionable+Content+on+eBaysubjecttier2=Potentially+Infringing+I ssues+%28including+counterfeits+Query=Use+of+images%2C+text+or+lin ks+without+proper+permission Thank you very much for the link! I will not do anything this time for one because the action is over, and also because this is a cheap item. But by the next bigger abuse I will definitely send in a complaint, and hopefully eBay will react appropriately... Best wishes, Boz -- _\\|//_ Imagination is more important than knowledge... 0(` O-O ')0 A. Einstein ===ooO=(_)=Ooo=== Bojidar D. Dimitrov author and editor, Pentax K-Mount web page [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://kmp.BDimitrov.de/ = __ __
Re: Pentax FA 80-320mm zoom DISCONTINUED
William Robb wrote: Made in Germany is the only other way to go. Sort of the optical axis. Well, actually, Made in Switzerland is even better. Think of Alpa, for example... Cheers, Boz
Re: Bellows, lens and LX (was: SMC Pentax K-Mount Macro Lens Poll)
Hi, Mishka wrote: FE-1 is fantastic, even without bellows. It's my second most-used finder (guess which one is the first? :) The image is HUGE. The focusing is precise. If you can get it --go for it. From: Tom Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] I have an LX with the FB1/FD1 combination, and have been thinking of getting the FE-1 along with the bellows, but do you think I really need it? I have never used the FB1/FD1, but I have the FE-1, and I can second Mishka's opinion. The image is not only HUGE; it is also very, very bright. I would gues about a 2 EV difference... More I need not say. Cheers, Boz
Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600
http://cgi.ebay.de/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=1381131824 It was also being sold under the basis that it would be shipped only nach Deutschland - that would certainly decrease the chances of a sale. Well, it is in Hamburg, so I could buy it, and ship it off. I'll just have to test it out first... 3:-) Cheers, Boz
FS: A28/2.8
Hi, I have added an A28/2,8 lens in excellent condition to my list of for sale items on the KMP: http://kmp.bdimitrov.de/for_sale/ Cheers, Boz
KMP next Update
Hi all, I have found the time to finish up the next KMP update. Thanks to some Java programming, the lens-summary pages now display all lens products and the lens-detail pages display all variations of each lens. My next projects: - generate a list of all lens unknowns - collect the Pentax 5-digit catalog numbers Cheers, Boz -- _\\|//_ Imagination is more important than knowledge... 0(` O-O ')0 A. Einstein ===ooO=(_)=Ooo=== Bojidar D. Dimitrov author and editor, Pentax K-Mount web page [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://kmp.BDimitrov.de/ = __ __
NEEDED: Pentax 5-digit catalog numbers
Hi all, In order to make the KMP lens data even more complete, I would like to collect the Pentax 5-digit numbers for all lenses. These are the numbers found on the cardboard packaging boxes as well as in dealer catalogs. Please note variations of the same lens in different colors have different numbers. When submitting a 5-digit number, please be specific for which lens color it applies. The KMP now displays the few lens numbers known to me. It also displays unknown for all which I do not know. So, if you have the packaging box of a Pentax lens or a dealer catalog, please e-mail me directly ([EMAIL PROTECTED]), and tell me the lens name and its 5-digit Pentax number. Thanks in advance, Boz -- _\\|//_ Imagination is more important than knowledge... 0(` O-O ')0 A. Einstein ===ooO=(_)=Ooo=== Bojidar D. Dimitrov author and editor, Pentax K-Mount web page [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://kmp.BDimitrov.de/ = __ __
Re: Has the MZ-S already a new mount?
Hi again, Alin Flaider wrote: [...] BTW, the data link can accommodate virtually any new protocol for IS, USM, whatever. I agree with that. In fact, this is the ony reason that I can imagine for the MZ-S keeping the power-zoom contacts: for powering whatever high-current devices integrated in the lenses. BTW, to me, the idea of an IS-USM teleconverter sounds like a technologically-sound one. Such a device could be built, and I don't see a better-suited company for that than Pentax. It could even take manual-focus lenses. !!! Cheers, Boz -- _\\|//_ Imagination is more important than knowledge... 0(` O-O ')0 A. Einstein ===ooO=(_)=Ooo=== Bojidar D. Dimitrov author and editor, Pentax K-Mount web page [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://kmp.BDimitrov.de/ = __ __
Re: E-Bay Question
Shaun Canning wrote: Without meaning to start some full scale inter-continental feud, can someone please tell me why German sellers on e-bay almost invariably wont post outside Germany? In eBay.de the default auction setting is shipping to Germany and the EU. A seller needs to actually read all the blabber and decide to change the setting. Is it something to do with customs or GST/VAT restrictions? No. I have a German seller who has just told me it would be more to ship an AF500FTZ and TR200 battery pack to Australia than the auction price. This is odd. Shipping is expensive, but not that bad. See http://kmp.bdimitrov.de/for_sale/ Cheers, Bojidar
(2) For the KMP: Exact lens names
Hi all, Sincere thanks to all who have already helped in my search for the exact lens names! Just in case some of you have not seen my previous messages, below I have the (short!) list of lenses whose names I still do not have and my original post. Cheers, Boz --- Hi all, In order to make the lens data for the KMP (http://KMP.BDimitrov.de/) even more complete, I would like to gather the exact names of all K-mount Pentax-made lenses. I have gathered quite a few already, but I still need help. Please look at http://KMP.BDimitrov.de/lenses/names.txt and check its contents against the lenses which you own. For lenses whose names I already have, please make sure that I have the correct one. For lenses where I have listed UNKNOWN, please give me the exact name as imprinted on the lens (barrel). Please pay attention to spaces, commas, tildas and hyphens (~ is not the same as -), etc. Please send your answers direct to me ([EMAIL PROTECTED]), and I will try to update the list every 2-3 days. Please do not e-mail me the entire list, only the changes/additions! Best wishes to all, and thanks for participating! Cheers, Boz --- Lenses whose exact names I do not have: SMC Lenses -- FA20f2.8 UNKNOWN FA28f2.8-Soft UNKNOWN K50f1.2-Gold UNKNOWN K85f2.2-Soft UNKNOWN FA85f2.8-Soft UNKNOWN FA100f3.5-MacroUNKNOWN F135f2.8 UNKNOWN FA300f2.8 UNKNOWN A400f2.8 UNKNOWN A600f5.6 UNKNOWN A1200f8UNKNOWN A28-80f3.5-4.5 UNKNOWN FA28-80f3.5-5.6UNKNOWN FA28-90f3.5-5.6UNKNOWN A35-135f3.5-4.5UNKNOWN F35-135f3.5-4.5UNKNOWN F80-200f4.7-5.6UNKNOWN FA80-200f4.7-5.6 UNKNOWN FA100-300f4.7-5.8 UNKNOWN F250-600f5.6 UNKNOWN FA250-600f5.6 UNKNOWN K400-600f8-12 UNKNOWN Prototypes -- K300f2 UNKNOWN M32-39f2.8-Flexi UNKNOWN K35-70f2.8 UNKNOWN K35-70f2.8-AutofocusUNKNOWN Non-SMC Lenses -- phs_80-200f4 UNKNOWN -- _\\|//_ Imagination is more important than knowledge... 0(` O-O ')0 A. Einstein ===ooO=(_)=Ooo=== Bojidar D. Dimitrov author and editor, Pentax K-Mount web page [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://kmp.BDimitrov.de/ = __ __ - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: MZ-3 Question
Hi Margo, A multiple exposure function would be nice!!! I suppose my main concern has to do with 'ruggedness: how much heat, cold or other environmental abuse a specific camera body could take. The pro models (such as the MS-Z) have more rugged bodies due to their construction. Or at least that's what the guy atr the camera store said. But I think he was trying to sell me an MZ-S! It's very simple. MZ-3 costs, what, $400? The MZ-S costs $1000. Even *_IF_* the MZ-3 fails some time along the road, you can get another one, and still have $200 for a nice lens/flash/etc. Or, look at it this way, maybe in 3-4 years you would be _happy_ if your MZ-3 breaks, and then you say Oh well, it was only $400, and then you buy the MZ-2 or whatever camera is there to buy at that time. You would definitely not give up the $1000 MZ-S easily. Cheers, Boz -- _\\|//_ Imagination is more important than knowledge... 0(` O-O ')0 A. Einstein ===ooO=(_)=Ooo=== Bojidar D. Dimitrov author and editor, Pentax K-Mount web page [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://kmp.BDimitrov.de/ = __ __ - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: FA 100mm f=2.8 Macro and macro ring light: Questions
Hi Bill, I don't know if a reverse adaptor is made specifically for this purpose Yep, a genuine Pentax item: http://kmp.bdimitrov.de/macro/ Cheers, Boz - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: manual lenses on autofocus body?
Hi Bruce, I would have to guess that they are the Soft focus lenses, because they do stop down metering only. Yes, correct! Even though the cameras has the info about maximum aperture, it doesn't kow which aperture is currently selected, so it cannot do it. On the other hand, maybe the lenses communicate the selected aperture electronically, via the digital contact. So I might be incorrect, and the all-inclusive statement might be correct. But this is a small difference anyway, and I was more trying to catch conversation than to prove something. Cheers, Boz - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: New Toys
Hi Rob, http://www.shinozuka-family.com/200110autumnlux2/kittyleaves4.jpg http://www.shinozuka-family.com/200110autumnlux2/tedkitleaves2.jpg This is absolutely amazing! I was expecting a slight curve, but absolutely not such a steep parabola. Was that the 35 lens? Cheers, Boz - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: manual lenses on autofocus body?
Hi, ERNR is correct. Only lenses that don't have A setting can't do multi-pattern metering. Any A or newer lenses do multi-pattern metering according to the setting on the camera no matter what the mode you are using. Well, you are both correct, to 91% or so. There are three lenses (A, F or FA) where this is not the case, at least not for all apertures. Finding out which ones is left as an exercise for the reader. 3:-) Good night, Boz - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Upgrading to auto focus
Hi Steve, Steve Larson wrote: Thanks Fred! Bernd from Germany (PDML memeber) had a brochure on the 200/3.5AF and it said it focused as fast as the eye. Now, why didn`t Pentax make the 35-70/2.8AF in ManF? That would have been a gem, considering its speed. Well, they sort of did. Have you forgotten the M35-70/2.8-3.5 ? Cheers, Boz - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Macro question
Hi, Does anyone know how the camera's (MZ-S and Super Program) on-board metering works when there is no communication between the camera and the lens? Yes. Look at http://kmp.bdimitrov.de/extras/K-mount/K.html Specifically, I am using the auto bellows and a 100mm macro lens and am consistently getting underexposed negatives. I generally find +2 to +3 stops of compensation is required to get correct exposure. It sounds like you are using a manual bellows, and are closing down the lens 2-3 stops. But if the bellows does not have an automatica-aperture coupler, the camera does not know that the lens will stop dow 2-3 stops. Now, if you were using an LX or a flash, it would work. Otherwise you need to overexpose by so many stops as you are closing the lens from its widest aperture. Good luck, Boz - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: K50/1.4 != M50/1.4 != A50/1.4
Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote: That's not true! Pentax has published optical diagrams for ALL lenses in current production (including FA and some F and A lenses). You can find them in lenses catalogue from their Japan home page (in PDF file). Well, while this is true (and I do have show some of those diagrams on the KMP), you'll be hard-pressed to find a diagram of the A50/1,4 or A70-210/4. You will find it impossible to find a diagram of the A100/2,8 Macro. Prove me wrong on the Macro, and I'll kiss you! :-) Diagrams are quite nice, with colour signed aspherical, ED and two more (unknown to me) kinds of glass. I personally find them to be of rather low quality, but something is better than nothing... Cheers, Boz - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: K50/1.4 != M50/1.4 != A50/1.4
Hi George, I could not detect differences between the SMC Takumar, K and M lens when comparing them. I would be supprised if they really are not the same optical design. The A is clearly different. While I have tremendous respect for your opinion, I think that K != M. I have received rather nice and large scans of the optical diagrams of both lenses, and those are different. I then dug out a Pentax lens booklet that shows the K and M lenses on the same page with optical diagrams, and those match the geometry of the two scans that I received (from Andre Langevin). The differences are _minimal_, but are there. I will make a new KMP release in the next week, and you will be able to see the differences. Cheers, Boz - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Anybody interested in getting the Pentax poster?
Hi Dario, Just a very quick note (I am leaving for a 10-day trip today)... I am definitely interested, and probably I will take a few extra and distribute them in Germany to whose who wish to have one. However, I have no feeling as to how many would be wished by German members. For me personally, I would like 2. Thanks and best wishes, Boz -- _\\|//_ Imagination is more important than knowledge... 0(` O-O ')0 A. Einstein ===ooO=(_)=Ooo=== Bojidar D. Dimitrov author and editor, Pentax K-Mount web page [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://kmp.BDimitrov.de/ = __ __ - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: New Voigtlander lenses for PK-A mount!!
Hi Rob, For those interested here are some pics of my Voigtlander 125 vs the A100f2.8 Macro, no sample pics though as I don't currently own a film scanner. http://www.home.aone.net.au/audiobias/P5240482m.jpg http://www.home.aone.net.au/audiobias/P5240483m.jpg http://www.home.aone.net.au/audiobias/P5240484m.jpg http://www.home.aone.net.au/audiobias/P5240485m.jpg Thanks a lot for the pics! The Voigtländer is more expensive than the Pentax and in size the two are very comparable. So is there are good reason to consider replacing the Pentax with the Voigtländer? Can any lens be better than the A100/2,8 Macro? Cheers, Boz - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
