Re: [Bulk] Re: 50mm lenses test pages: help with japanese translation
On 4/13/05 10:04 AM, "John Whittingham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I was wondering if one of our resident japanese list members might >> help me understand the significance of the left chart versus the >> right one. Is the left one for high (1:1000) contrast level and the >> other one for reduced (1:1.6) ? > > > It looks similar to the charts published by Amateur Photographer, high and > low contrast. The correlation between those I've seen is very good IIRC. Unfortunately, this is in Chinese, not in Japanese. Perhaps some Chinese speaking folks can help but most Japanese can make some sense out of certain Chinese characters. All I can tell is that this is obviously comparing the centre/edge resolution under high/low contrast (obviously left being high contrast). There is also indeed a reference to Amateur Photographer in page 1. Beyond that, I do not wish to cast any more possibly misleading info. Cheers, Ken
Re: PESO - Look Beyond the Mark
On 4/12/05 2:03 PM, "Rick Womer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Very impressionistic, Bruce. It took me a while to > figure out what I was looking at, and even then my > eyes kept trying to bring the sidewalk and grass next > to the puddles into focus. I like the idea a lot, but > somehow it's not comfortable to look at. This is exactly what I felt too. First a bit confused, then impressed by the idea and the crispness of the reflection, but a bit uncomfy to look at. BTW, clicking through Bruce's other PAW collections, they are all so nice and impressive. I am finding myself always reviewing his past posted photos every time he shares his latest :-). A lot to learn from them. Thank you Bruce for sharing these photos. Cheers, Ken
Re: P-DFA 100mm f2.8
On 4/6/05 9:58 PM, "KT Takeshita" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 4/6/05 9:38 PM, "Joseph Tainter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Do you know if Pentax changed the wonderful optical formula of the FA 50 >> f2.8 or just added more coating? > > Hi Joe, > > Optical formula. > > Ken But it was also said that the basic performance should not have changed. I think this answers your question better. But no more explanation. This is as much as I could translate and interpret what was said. Cheers, Ken
Re: P-DFA 100mm f2.8
On 4/6/05 9:38 PM, "Joseph Tainter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Do you know if Pentax changed the wonderful optical formula of the FA 50 > f2.8 or just added more coating? Hi Joe, Optical formula. Ken
Re: P-DFA 100mm f2.8
On 4/5/05 9:59 PM, "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 5 Apr 2005 at 10:15, Joseph Tainter wrote: > >> Pentax lost money on both the FA 50 f2.8 and FA 100 f2.8 macros. So they >> were redesigned to be less expensive to build. The D FA is reported to >> keep the same optical design as the F/FA 50 -- and that formula is near >> legendary. The D FA 100 is a new formula. > > I can't help thinking that something got lost in translation here. I can > believe that they didn't make the profit margin that their other lenses did, > but making at least two popular lenses at a loss for years? I'm sure the > construction of the new macro lenses will provide a big margin and along with > a weight/size advantage for the user. The statement by Pentax person that they lost the money for every macro lenses they sold was true, and nothing was lost in translation. It was indeed a "loss" but not a matter of "reduced profit". But my speculation is that they of course did not start out as a losing proposition (that would be stupid), but at some point in the history of the sales of these particular lenses, the cost started creeping up (or suddenly increased for some reason) and crossed the breakeven point. But they could not jack up the price for the competitive and other reasons. Let's hope this was rather a recent phenomenon and the magnitude of the loss was not that big (otherwise, they would have either stopped selling them, or increased the price). They jumped on the opportunity to make some of the lenses "digital compatible", and redesigned these lenses so that they become profitable again. Besides the material changes, I hope that those new macros are better lenses in various aspects. BTW, as I understand it, the triggering reason for redesigning these macros came from an innocent and casual report from a user of FA50/2.8 macro/*istD who experienced a flare in the centre when used with a flash at close range at near minimum aperture. This was apparently repeatable but never happened on film cameras. So, Pentax immediately decided to eliminate this flare by minor changes in optical design. Along the way, they also decided that they might as well redesign them for another reason (cost). I understand that FDA100mm/2.8 macro is a brand new optical formula. Since they reassured that the optical design was never compromised, I hope they changed them for the better, i.e., lighter and more compact. I do not doubt the performance of these lenses and they look good too. I am going to pick up an FDA100/2.8 macro, replacing my current tank. Anyway. Cheers, Ken
Re: On production cost (was Re: Future of DA lenses)
On 3/30/05 9:49 AM, "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It does conjure thoughts of how they might cut corners on any new WA lenses > for > the soon to be arriving (LOL) 645D. I wonder if it will be profitable to > continue production of the current 645 lens line or maybe they are thinking > they won't have to because there are so many used ones out there ;-) Let's just hope that there is a subtle difference between "cutting corners" and a "clever engineering" in lowering the production cost. I purchased a 645N kit used and am not familiar with the prices of new lenses but perhaps their prices are profitable (high?) enough. Plus the size of the 645 lenses might require a sturdier construction anyway. BTW, is there such a thing as "consumer grade" 645 lenses? > I do also find it intriguing that companies like Cosina can produce very high > quality lenses (optically and mechanically) then sell them at reasonable > prices and still profit. Cosina's volume is very high (on some) and many of the brand lenses, particularly consumer ones, are OEM'd by Cosina (Nikon comes to my mind). OTOH, although contradictory, I speculate that their manufacturing setup is such that it would allow production of small batches of many varieties (not just the lenses). BTW, I understand that the cost of lenses has much to do with the distribution cost particularly the warehousing. Cheers, Ken
Re: On production cost (was Re: Future of DA lenses)
On 3/30/05 6:06 AM, "Alin Flaider" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As always I appreciate your glimpses over the "inside". What I find > most interesting now is the hint to the build costs (point 2). > I suspect a major contribution to the cost was due to having to > maintain very low tolerances and this perhaps is associated with > manual assembly in the now closed Japan factory(?). Anyway, a friend > recently disassembled several FA consumer zooms and was horrified to > find out large tolerances by design, alignment through shimming as a > rule, high wear plastic guiding rails - all of these easily leading > to misalignments of moving optical groups, both relative to the > optical axis and the image plane. Optics that are rather good > delivered sub-average or inconsistent results mainly due to poor > mechanical design and manufacture. It's hard to believe that Pentax > might apply the same cost reduction to the DFA macros - > traditionally some of their best lenses - but I cannot help > wondering if common and molded parts policy sufficed to lower the > production costs enough to make the goods profitable. Hi Alin, I hear similar stories everywhere, particularly on what is called "consumer zooms". And this is not just on one brand but across most of the brands. I do not want to sound like a Canon basher (I do have some of their equipment which I appreciate) but some of their consumer lenses are horrible too. In the case of DFA macro, it is apparent from his statement that at least one of the major reasons (or THE reason :-) was to make the lenses profitable. I am not quite sure if they did it in loosening the manufacturing tolerances (maybe to some extent, but these are primes). But, according to his statement, they did it mainly by designing common parts (I am not sure if the use of common parts is across their new lens line, or just macros. Probably just macros, considering the common filter size) and using the molded parts (interpret it "plastic". I guess he did not quite want to use the word :-). Much like what they are doing in auto industry. I am sure that they also looked at the way to assemble these lenses and eliminated the steps which require close tolerance assembling. However, it is hard to believe that Pentax, being what they are, cut corners in designing lenses like macro. Since the shift to AF, the design and assembly inevitably incorporated some loose tolerance by default in order to allow faster AF at minimum motor power (and the use of "a lot of " plastic parts perhaps to minimize the inertia along the way). I hate those wobbling plastic zoom extensions. So, it was inevitable that AF lenses went plasticky and loose. Obviously, it is impossible to have a butter smooth MF feeling (oh, I miss my old M50/1.4) with the AF capability :-). Unfortunately, we cannot have it in both ways. I do hope that the new DFA Macros are well built, not excessively like the current one. Metal barrel is nice, but I no longer mind the plastic barrel as long as it is solidly built. One thing which concerned me, although I do not have their stock, is the fact that Pentax continued selling the older macros at loss, and they say these were one of the best selling lenses. In a way, it sounds very typical Pentax, but if they continued to do so, they were obviously choking themselves up and they are not supposed to afford such a thing. I am rather glad they found a way to make money on these lenses by changing the design, hopefully without compromising the performance as they said :-). It sounds healthier. Cheers, Ken
Re: Future of DA lenses
On 3/29/05 11:20 AM, "Quasi Modo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "if everything else is at least equal to the FA version" - ceteris > paribus is a dangerous thing Ken! I've only seen one comparison page > between the FA 100 and the DFA 100 but the FA 100 used in the > comparison looked severely compromised. The dpreview Pentax SLR > forums usually has plenty of comparison threads posted every week so > it'd be worth searching and trawling through. I also know a couple > of fellow Australians who will be getting the DFA version soon and > I'll be sure to get them to subscribe to the list and post something > resembling an opinion on it! Well, I simplified my statements but the size/weight reduction is significant. FA100mmm macro was indeed a tank. BTW, I read an interesting statement by a Pentax lens designer on new DA macros. I list only on DA 100mm macro. 1. It is a brand new design (as opposed to 50mm version which basically purged flare spots (kind of ghost) caused by CCD. Otherwise no changes for 50mm), taking into consideration the future reduction of the barrel size. FREE design contributed to the significant reduction of the size. 2. FA100/50 macros have been one of the most well selling lines of Pentax lens lineup, but they were also money losers (cost was higher than the price). The more they sold, the more did they suffer from red :-). 3. Therefore, they now use many common parts and injection molded parts, whereby they should make money while maintaining the price points. 4. They swear that the performance was not compromised. Re above item 1 (future reduction of barrel size), I noted that the filter size of this lens is 49mm vs. current 58mm. Return to more like M series lenses? Re above 4, this was uttered in rather an informal occasion and I have every reason to believe that this was true (not a propaganda). But to me, the size of the new DA macros is as important as their optical performance. Cheers, Ken
Re: [Bulk] Re: Future of DA lenses
On 3/29/05 11:41 AM, "Mark Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> And, come to think of it, they don't really show much interest >> in the production of *better* (your definition of better goes here) >> APS-C k-mount DSLRs. > > I think they definitely have shown interest. I expect a better K-mount > DSLR to be announced by the end of this year and be available early next > year. And a better one after that. And so on. I do agree with this. Just when N/C was going to dominate the DSLR market, driving everybody else out, Pentax entered the market and it was well received. In fact, we hear praises of Pentax who dared putting themselves into the sea of N/C (and Oly to some extent as well). It made the market competitive and interesting, offer more choices to consumers and is keeping the N/C honest :-). Before their entry into the DSLR market, Pentax tend to be dismissed as an enthusiast's brand. *ist D/Ds are typical Pentax products in that they offer what the users really want (and use) in a compact package at an affordable price (Pentaprism finder, lower noise @higher ISO ---although not as good as Canon's CMOS--, dual power source and 2" LCD and all that). However, for this very reason, average Joes who enter into the DSLR (or the SLR) market for the first time do not really know how to appreciate the Pentax products (Only if Pentax know how to make flashy promotions:-). OTOH, Canon know exactly how to appeal to the market. I think I am seeing a changing Pentax since their foray into the DSLR market. They consider themselves basically an SLR company as one of their executives said recently, and it is a matter of life or death for them to stay in this market. I hope they will certainly be bolder than before. So far, they do not look like a sleeping cat anymore :-). I have more confidence in them than before, and actually look forward to their next products. Cheers, Ken
Re: [Bulk] Re: Future of DA lenses
On 3/29/05 10:37 AM, "Quasi Modo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Perhaps also consider the Tamron 90/2.8 Di instead of the DFA100/2.8 > macro (unsure of size/weight comparison). I know I'm a heretic but > keep 3rd party in mind (even the Sigma 50/2.8 macro EX DG is getting > very good feedback). Hi, Good day. Thanks for your advice. No, you are not a heretic :-). When I was examining my options for the DSLR, I found myself a bit more "mature" in that I've grown to be more practical and less biased after some period of sabbatical, although I still am a Pentax enthusiast :-). This made me more "objective" in evaluating what's really good for me. I am not a Canon basher but I "objectively" believe that their lenses are too big (for me) but then it is of course relative. As to the macro, I certainly consider and check out the Tamron 90/2.8 Di as I saw some very positive reviews here. 100mm for a 1.5 crop factor is a bit too long for my use (something like 60mm would have been useful but I recognize that they are designed for both digital and 35mm) but I can use it as a mid-tele if it is light enough. Pentax DA Macro impressed me mainly because of its size/weight, and I thought it would be an excellent choice if everything else is at least equal to the FA version. FA100mm macro I have has been very useful but a bit too heavy. Cheers, Ken
Re: Future of DA lenses
On 3/29/05 7:41 AM, "Morten Dahl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I just bought an *ist DS with the 16-45 mm. Very happy about it, and > will probably buy the 50-200. > > But one thing is worrying me: What are the chances that a Pentax DSLR > with a full frame sensor will make my DA-lenses obsolete? Hello, I have been lurking this list for quite a while (never left it though. When I was not subscribing, I was watching the archive), partly because I have been very busy, so much so that I could not take much time for my hobbies. I am just about ready to plunge into a DSLR world after holding out for perhaps too long. I purchased a Canon G3 a few years ago with an intention to use it as a stopgap until the DSLR market would stabilize and the choice would become easier (it never did ;-). I have Pentax lenses as well as some heresy (Canon) lenses and naturally compared the *ist D/Ds and EOS 20D/Rebel XT. After handling those two brands and particularly peeked through the Rebel's finder (even 20D), the decision was easy. I am going to buy exactly the same combination as you chose, plus a new DA 100mm macro (replacing my current FA 100mm macro). Too bad the FA 50/1.4 escaped me just when I was ready to place an order. I am going to scrap my current Pentax lens possession (except Limited's etc) and restructure it into a compact line. I have a 645N set but I rarely use it these days. I am a known small camera enthusiast and the current crop of APS-C sized DSLR was a God send to me. It made a compact package really possible. I have no particular sentiment to 35mm which has long been a film standard. 35mm means less and less to me. We have been so used to the 35mm standard but now everything is relative. APS sized sensor will continue to improve in the future anyway. You already know some design difficulties involving lenses dedicated to the small size sensor particularly at the wider end. Fast/wide angle lenses will become huge if they have to be used for a FF sensor size. I am not an expert of course but Canon EF mount probably has enough (barely) diameter which can make it happen and that's one of the reasons why they have FF models already. As to Pentax, they once produced a FF DSLR (proto type), and I am sure it is technically very feasible, but I am not sure if they are really enthusiastic in pursuing it, at least for now. The current K mount size is probably very optimum for the APS size sensor and besides, Pentax is an expert in producing compact package, thus this is the area they can demonstrate their ability fully and compete in the market. Nikon, with a similar mount size with K-mount, is probably in the same thinking although they are different from Pentax in that their pride would force them to compete with Canon in every market segment. But their is a persistent rumour of the mount change when they enter into a FF market. Pentax is sooner or later going to market their digital 645 and some speculate that this is the Pentax version of FF digital. I am not sure. They probably responded to the studio requests to produce the 645 digital but could enter into a FF DSLR market as soon as they see the market matures (if ever) and feel confident that they could compete. They have all necessary technologies and probably are waiting for a competitive sensor supplier to appear. But it appears that the market is calming down and beginning to firmly embrace the APS sized sensor. Actually FF might even become a niche with the APS sized sensor matures. I cannot trade the compact package of Pentax system for the size of Canon lenses. Taking the example of Rebel line of their entry level DSLR, it appeals particularly well to those who enter into a DSLR market for the first time with little or no lenses (and some who cannot quite afford 20D's) are buying into it. But some level headed Canon enthusiasts are also buying *ist Ds. They do not like the cheap construction (really) and the small and poor tunnel vision finder (infamous Canon finder with an "attitude", i.e., just use if for a framing purpose and let their superb AF take care of the rest :-). Anyway, to answer your question, from what I observe, the APS size sensor will be with us on a long haul and it might even become a standard. Even if Pentax might join the FF market in the future, my bet is that they won't abandon the APS size sensor. They probably might even try to nurture it. Pentax's lens road map shown in the recent Tokyo Show clearly indicates their commitment to the more compact lens line (DA and DFA), and their acknowledgement of the necessity to show it to their customers (very rare move for them, but probably to respond to the exactly the kind of question you have). I am very happy to see that they shrunk the size of their Macro lenses for example (these are not just for the digital though) and if the new ones are as good as (or hopefully better than) the current line, I will replace mine with a new one in a heartbeat.
Re: The Last Two Days
On 04.6.21 7:07 PM, "Tanya Mayer Photography" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > graywolf, there is so much irony in that statement, you just wouldn't > believe it. Plot deepens! Ken
Re: IS in *istD
On 04.6.15 6:23 PM, "Peter Loveday" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Just out of interest, is there any actual evidence of this (other than the > fact it looks to be the same)? Truth is that a Pentax engineer who developed the system was scouted by Nikon. This is true. But I do not know how they evaded patent issues etc, if any, in almost exactly copying the Pentax AF system. Cheers, Ken
Re: IS in Pentax *istD (was Re: canon vs Pentax)
On 04.6.15 11:16 AM, "Tom Reese" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Alan, I don't know why the camera or lens would have to detect movement. > That would require some type of accelerometers and would be a finicky cludge > IMO. I do not pretend to know much about how they achieve IS effect, but I remember reading an article somewhere which said that the Canon style in-lens IS has two small gyros to detect X/Y axis movement, and the required lens shift amount is computed and actuated on a microsecond order (or something like that). On video cameras, Canon uses Vari-angle prism which is essentially a clear gel-like material sandwiched between two plain glasses which are normally parallel each other. When the movement is detected, the angle of these two glasses changes, or some such fancy thing. Don't ask me why this is not adopted in 35mm lens etc. I think Canon site must have some explanation pages somewhere. Cheers, Ken
Re: canon vs pentax
On 04.6.13 11:19 PM, "Tom Reese" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If the lens is moving and the sensor is stationary then what > would the captured image look like? I would think that in camera > stabilization would require some type of stabilizing lens element in front > of the sensor rather than stabilizing the sensor itself. How does the IS > work in their binoculars anyway? I was just passing some "rumours" I was finding in Japanese sites. However, I admit I always have a wishful thinking about these things :-). In-camera stabilization was achieved by Konica-Minolta on their A1 or Z1 or whatever they call (non interchangeable lens SLR). My understanding is that it works superbly and their achievement is very much admired. Since K-M have not come up with a DSLR yet (I know it exists and being tested), I have no idea if this IS could be immediately applicable to wide angle or long telephoto etc. When I have time, I might dig into the detail description of K-M technology. I do not know if moving a CCD element is any more difficult than moving a group of small compensating lenses within the lens system like Canon's. There might be an optical restrictions when stabilizing the image at the focal plane. In any case, K-M have proven that it works. Let's see what other mfrs are doing :-). I just thought that it is logical to stabilize the image in camera rather than in each individual lenses, now that CCD is indeed moveable (and perhaps lighter than stabilizing lens group?). I am sure that at least the prototype exists in Pentax Keppler saw it in Japan. Otherwise his commentary was rather irresponsible. Cheers, Ken
Re: Pentax Forum
On 04.6.13 6:43 PM, "Jim Apilado" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I was reading the travel section in my Sunday paper. The writer suggested > that visitors to Tokyo should visit the Pentax Forum. What is this? Pentax Forum is a place where you can see, touch and operate all current products including cameras and lenses. You can also obtain a quick diagnosis of trouble and often get service right on the spot. It also has galleries. Years ago, when I was still in Japan, it was a fun place with much more Pentax "contents" such as Pentax history and some of the old products etc. They may also be selling some Pentax merchandises as well. It is housed in a very modern building. Cheers, Ken
Re: More rumours on Baby-D!
On 6/3/04 9:57 AM, "Sylwester Pietrzyk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There are some new rumours on Polish www: > http://twojepc.pl/news_wiecej.php?id=7524 > > In short I can translate it as: > "This fall Pentax will present new, cheap DSLR at the price of around > 100 Yen (almost 900$). Production run will be around 2 pieces/month. > Pentax expects to sold 10 by the end of march 2005. New model should > help Pentax in realising ambitious plans to increase its share in DSLR > market by 40%" > Source of this information is "4Press / Ananova" - quite credible. I bet we > will see it during this year's Photokina :-) > Hi folks, This is actually a press release by Pentax Japan yesterday. It says the actual marketing in Japan from this fall. Cheers, Ken
Re: Pentax plans to focus on digital
On 6/2/04 8:40 PM, "Cliff Nietvelt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > with Canon or Nikon, there are plenty of EOS > 1n's, 3's, 1V's, F5's, F100's kicking around (used & > new), But they do not have PDML ;-). Ken
Re: GFM coming together
On 5/29/04 2:14 PM, "Bill Owens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Counting regulars and lurkers, > looks like somewhere between 20 and 30 PDML'ers will be together in less > than a week. I'm looking forward to meeting all of the newcomers and > getting reacquainted with the regulars. Hi all GFM participants, Thank you for deserting us. It is a duty of all of you to report us what's going on over there by both posting here and images, so that those of us who were sadly deserted by you can still feel the atmosphere and comradery there. We are all proud of so many PDML'ers come together and acquaint themselves each other. Only in PDML? Me? Perhaps next year ;-). Have fun and enjoy yourself! Cheers, Ken
Re: FA 77 Limited
On 5/20/04 4:30 PM, "jtainter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > (c) Pentax is remaining solvent by drastically cutting its manufacturing > capacity. > > As I've posted here before, I admit that I know little of business matters. > The signs, though, have made me suspect that (c) may be the case. Or the possibility d). Imminent renewal of lens design/series :-). Pentax seem to be making a record profit this year, and riding the digital tide quite well. So, let's hope they now have enough money and can afford to take risk in bringing out updated products. However, if 31mm LTD is disappearing from the market, that concerns me, as I want it. Cheers, Ken
Re: Let's stop (was: Anyone still using windows ME)
On 5/20/04 3:13 PM, "Antonio Aparicio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It is what happens in free speech loving democracies. Hi Antonio, No, PDML is not the place for exercising the right of free speech. I think this is becoming too much. Each list (like PDML) has its own culture nurtured over the years. What I (and most others) cherish in this list, besides being force fed all kinds of misc non-Pentax knowledge you care to know, ranging from Australian Vegemite to a never-heard-of beer brand (beer is another no-no subject, BTW. If you really want to turn otherwise legitimate thread into OT, just a drop a word beer and that will do :-), is remarkable tolerance and self-control. PDML is one of rare lists of this kind where male as well as female (and anyone in-between :-) can safely participate in. Newcomers are usually very warmly welcomed and accommodated. Yes, they discuss OTs (and most threads for some reasons, drift away and end up in some sort of OT :-) but normally the self-control kicks in and they make natural death. This is because people know by experience what to do, what not to do and when to stop. I think the reason why people here resent you is not what you say (they care less whether Mac is better than PC or vice versa) but the fact that you react to each post bearing your name and continue the argument for the sake of the argument. Besides, the youngest member here is Coty (and at 70, he is still kicking :-). And when people look like verbally abusing each other, they are usually old timers, having nothing better to do, and just exchanging jabs. So, Antonio, go slow. When people here feel threatened that someone new brought in a new culture which might alter the current culture, and might change the traditional and tacit rules, they react. Sticking to your gun to the end in OT thread is a definite no-no. If you felt that you muddied the water inadvertently, make a quiet and honourable exit, and you lose nothing. Only the experience tells you. I for one will exit the list quickly if this list becomes like any other (like rec.photo) You articulate your point well, and would be a good contributor to the list, but for God's sake, please do not attempt to have the last word which will drag the thread on and on, you are picked on for that, and you react. Never stops. Yes, I know Mac is a better tool :-), yes, I am a Mac worshipper, yes, I have a 12" PowerBook, and yes, I too throw in "Mac's the best" remark once in a while (with tongue in cheek, of course) just for the fun of muddying the water (and get a lot of flaks of course), but if you are SERIOUS in trying to convince people that Mac is better, you are basically telling PC users that they are stupid, and there are better forums to do it. Besides, not even Mac has been very successful in getting the point across, and how can you :-). I feel sorry for watching you alienated by sticking to your gun. OK, Mac is better. The end of story and move on! Cheers, Ken
Re: 77 limited or 85* for portraits/canndids
On 04.5.19 8:14 PM, "Winston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I agree with most of it, except that I think 77 is equally sharp wide > opened. I remember testing my *ist (35mm) with this lens - I shot almost > a roll of Reala at f/1.8 and they are all sharp, very crisp with distant > subjects. Of course the sharpness would be more even stopped down, and > definitely this is the best lens I have. Hi Winston, I agree with you that 77mm is sharp enough even at wide open, particularly compared with 43mm LTD. I just remember that 85mm/1.4 was a tiny bit sharper at wide open when the focus was dead on. But my memory is fading on that, and I really have to look back photos taken with 85mm. I did not mean to discredit the wide open sharpness of 77mm :-). > The only limitation is the slow AF, but it focuses manually almost like > a real MF. Slow MF does not bother me. In MF, it feels as if the resistance comes from high gear ratio but indeed so much better than any other AF lenses (although I do miss those butter smooth MF of M lenses :-). > I just need to buy that 31mm to satisfy my thirst of complete LTD lens, > but the price keeps me away from getting it! Ditto here! I do not think it is available in this country (Canada) last time I checked it. Perhaps B&H has it. But I want a black one. My 43mm is black but 77mm is silver :-(. Cheers, Ken
Re: Anyone still using windows ME
Hi Antonio, I was expecting that you would read the following paragraph in that article in response to your query why Mac is usually spared for virus attack which is very rampant in Windows machine. Never mind on OS/X security hole etc. "Typically, people write exploits and other forms of malicious code for the Windows operating system because so many people use that OS and because of the notoriety the person gets. For those same reasons, Macs are usually spared. "It seems to be that people just don't write exploits for the Mac because they're not as popular and they [the exploit writers] don't get much bang for the buck," Cheers, Ken On 5/19/04 4:41 AM, "Antonio Aparicio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello, nice to meet you too. The link you posted is to a know issue > with DLling dodgly .dmg files (like .Zip files). Basically if you set > your browser to auto open them after DL there is a potential security > risk as you could be unzipping a dodgy piece of software - of course > for it to do any harm you would have to allow it to install first too. > No really a big risk but something to be aware of. The lesson as > always is watch what you DL. > > A. > > > > On 19 May 2004, at 05:21, KT Takeshita wrote: > >> On 5/18/04 5:53 PM, "Antonio Aparicio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> Really, I didn't know that. Interesting. So how come Windows is still >>> so vulnerable to virus attacks? >> >> Hi Antonio, >> >> Nice to meet you (on the list :-). >> >> This might help you understand what's going on in each OS? >> >> http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/2004/05/18/safariadvisory/ >> index.php?redi >> rect=1084911514000 >> >> Cheers, >> >> Ken >> >
Re: Anyone still using windows ME
On 5/18/04 5:53 PM, "Antonio Aparicio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Really, I didn't know that. Interesting. So how come Windows is still > so vulnerable to virus attacks? Hi Antonio, Nice to meet you (on the list :-). This might help you understand what's going on in each OS? http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/2004/05/18/safariadvisory/index.php?redi rect=1084911514000 Cheers, Ken
Re: Future Practicality of Film (APS)
On 5/18/04 9:50 PM, "KT Takeshita" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Even > discussing the demise of APS (as well as 35mm for that matter) is not moot Is NOW moot. Ken
Re: Pentax sales performance
On 5/15/04 6:14 AM, "Dr. Heiko Hamann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Do you know any information or sources on the regional distribution of > sales and income (Europe/America/Asia and especially Japan)? Hi Heiko, Following might be of interest to you. It is statistics published every month by CIPA (Camera and Imaging Products Ass'n), and goes by film/digital/domestic/export (by region too) and camera type (even by pixel #) etc. Take a look at this first and if you wish to go further down by camera maker etc (and next occasion when I find time :-), I can dig down Japanese web pages and find something of interest to everybody. I know all these info exist as I have seen them before but lost most of URLs when I upgraded my computer. But I can search again. For film camera, see; http://www.cipa.jp/english/data/silver.html For digicam; http://www.cipa.jp/english/data/dizital.html For each, click "MAR.2004" and PDF will download. Have fun! Cheers, Ken
Re: First use of ist D
On 03.9.27 1:13 AM, "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The flash card is almost impossible to remove without forceps once it is in. > This is frightfully bad design, and shouldn't have made it to market like > this. This is also a general griping in Japan. Somebody complained it to the service centre in Japan and was told that Pentax is addressing it but not sure when the revision would be made. Meantime, they (Pentax) apparently made a band aid solution for now. Put sticking tape on both sides of CF with approx. 1cm left out and stick them together. This will work as a bellow to pull the card out, and it won't interfere with the door closure. There was a report about using a microdrive and it was too tight to get it out, and needed to bring it to a service centre. Cheers, Ken
Re: Emptying batteries
On 03.9.23 10:41 AM, "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You are correct to a degree but the problem is not the rate of discharge as > you > could easily select a bulb with a well matched power rating however the > problem > is that the batteries don't appreciate being too deeply discharged. True. Thank you for adding this. Reason for using CD player etc as a discharger, in addition to a slower discharge, is because it usually stops playing before the batteries are completely discharged (a bit of juice still left). If the batteries are completely discharged, they may not even recharge. Cheers, Ken
Re: Emptying batteries
On 03.9.23 3:40 AM, "Anders Hultman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ten odd years ago I worked at a local tv station, and noticed how the > video photographers used to empty the camera batteries completely before > recharging them. To do that they used big, hot power resistors, or more > often, light bulbs to drain the batteries quickly. > > Is this a practice I should adopt too with the Ni-MH batteries to my > digital camera? Ni-MH batteries do not need as frequent a discharging as Ni-Cad requires but I recently saw a post that the draining it by light bulbs is not a recommended practice as the rate of draining is too fast and shorten the life of batteries. Today, the recommended way, if you do not have a proper discharge circuit that will drain the battery in a controlled way, is use it for portable CD player or Walkman or some such thing which will drain it more slowly. However, I am writing this out of my memory and you should ask someone who is knowledgeable about the design of rechargeable batteries or dig deep into the cyberspace :-). Cheers, Ken
Re: New Nikon D2H has same AF-pattern than *istD
On 03.9.20 10:32 AM, "Dario Bonazza 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Any further info? In case, thanks for sharing it. Don't know about the patent situation but you might note that the designer of SAFOX 8 has been scouted to Nikon :-). Cheers, Ken
*ist D sample images
Hi all, Amazing butterfly pics with FA*200/2.8 http://www2u.biglobe.ne.jp/~ikephoto/index.htm Cheers, Ken
Re: Vs: Lens Mount Progress
On 03.6.21 5:29 AM, "Raimo Korhonen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > During the last Photokina I learned that Pål has good, reliable sources in the > Pentax circles in Japan. Wasn't Pål the one who correctly predicted that the name of the new series was *ist when none of us had the faintest clue? Cheers, Ken
Re: Lens Mount Progress
On 03.6.20 7:39 PM, "whickersworld" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Pål Jensen wrote: >> You seem to base this on the assumption that MZ-S contains > a shutter not optimized for durability. This is way off the > truth. > > > > *Your* assumption is way off the truth, Pål. > > Try sticking to facts, because you will have a greater > chance of getting things right. > > John > I believe Pål is right on this account. I remember reading a Japanese magazine article where Pentax designers were discussing the process of designing the MZ-S, wherein they said that one of the most difficult tasks was to keep the power consumption within a limit (it's still a battery eater :-). Shutter unit was capable for 1/8000 but there was a huge (probably exponential) difference in the shutter charge between 1/6000 and 1/8000 and Pentax decided to tune down the shutter to 1/6000, thus effectively increasing the durability. I do not believe that Pentax aimed at increasing the shutter durability but it was rather the side benefit of minimizing the power consumption. Cheers, Ken
Re: Pentax announced development of digital medium format
On 03.6.16 3:44 PM, "Pål Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In other words, this is not necessarily a digital back but a digital medium > format camera; that is, a camera that take one of the Pentax MF lenses. > Is this the rumored 645D or is it related to the new and compact 67, or is it > both? We've been hearing for quite some time that Pentax have been developing 645D. However, this particular article suggests more like Kodak made a move because of share of MF market by Pentax. It makes more sense to Kodak to make digital backs for Pentax MF cameras than any other brands naturally, and Pentax probably found common benefit there. To me, it sounds like 645 digital back and Pentax are willing to modify the current design to take the digital back (hence exchangeable film back too). But then why not for 67 too. Compact 67 rumour is not dead yet. Like this article, something suddenly crops up out of nowhere. Cheers, Ken
Re: FA77 observation...
On 03.6.16 2:14 PM, "Caveman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Since several people had the same problem... I am not sure if it is any kind of "problem" per se. One does not notice it until told. Perhaps just the way it is designed :-). It does not give me any problem. Not that I am defending Mr.Harakiri :-). Cheers, Ken
Re: FA77 observation...
On 03.6.15 4:53 PM, "Alan Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The > strange thing is, the focus ring feels light again if the camera was shifted > to portrait format (on camera or not really doesn't matter). I too have been aware of it since I purchased it when it came out. In fact, it was first pointed out by someone in this list at that time. It is hard to tell what is causing this from the exploded view but it should have something to do with a gravity, asymmetric part (s) and possibly something pivoting. You only feel very slight resistance in landscape (normal) mode (distinctive enough though), and I was not aware of it until someone pointed out. Interesting. Cheers, Ken
Re: *ist D revisited
On 03.6.8 5:18 PM, "Alan Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Oh yes, the 40/2.8 is fun to work with too. Where do you want to proceed > 1st? Front or back? :-) You are baaad, Alan! :-). Cheers, Ken
Re: Al barrel (was: *ist D revisited )
On 03.6.8 8:42 AM, "frank theriault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > even though he doesn't know how to spell it . When I was in the islands in the orient once upon a time, I always spelled aluminium. Since I came to this continent, I see aluminum everywhere. So, I began to use aluminum to avoid embarrassment. The funny thing is, as I write this in MS Entourage (Outlook equivalent), aluminum is flagged and the spell checker (if I ever use :-) would correct it to aluminium. OTOH, when I write aluminum in MS Word, it does not flag but it does when I spelled aluminium. Is aluminum some kind of "American" spelling, or aluminum and aluminium indicates any subtle difference, or no distinction at all? The bottom line question is "which is correct"? Thank you, Ken
Re: OT-So What are You? was: Late Saturday fun
On 03.6.8 8:38 AM, "Lon Williamson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Snapshooter here. I don't care about original vision, highly creative, > evocative, etc. The charm of photography for me is very simple: capturing > moments and memories. Once in a while (about once a roll), I get a shot > I like. That's enough to keep me going. Hi Lon, You sounded very candid and honest, not making a pretentious "pro" talk. But I am sure you too try to play an photo artist by trying different composition and camera angles etc , and as you say, once in a while you get "keepers". Is it not what most of us, the hobbyists (grocery don't depend on what we shoot), do for the enjoyment? Your no-nonsense statement above is refreshing. Cheers, Ken
Re: *ist D revisited
On 03.6.8 7:11 AM, "Thomas Stach" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dr E D F Williams schrieb: >> >> Surely EDX would be enough? You'd need to prepare a sample of the metal to >> do a quantitative analysis? We'd only need to know the elemental >> constituents, not the exact proportions, to settle this nonsense once and >> for all. > > To determine the constituents of an alloy within a given frame of > accuracy around +/- 2% > an EDX-analysis is sufficient. [snipped for short] It always amazes me how many (true) experts in various areas we have in this list (and how one subject goes way off track for extreme :-). I have my own expertise but it is not the photography related. Good to have you guys as we do not know when we need you next time :-). Cheers, Ken
Re: *ist D revisited
On 03.6.8 1:55 AM, "Alan Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That's what happened when you are sleepy. You said something you shouldn't > have said. Now we know Takeshita didn't make the number up himself. :-) >> If you made that number up, then you are very good. 7075-T6 is the most >> widely used alloy in the military aircraft industry. I did not quite make up the number but was approximating it. I knew it was a 7000 series and close enough but was not sure if it was bang on. Turned out it was. Sometime, memory serves right ;-). Cheers, Ken P.S. Aircraft grade aluminum is used everywhere. Looking at tightly fitted retainer rings etc of a lens, some stiff materials must be used. But as long as it is aluminum, alloy or not (no pure aluminum please), it is an inherently soft material, used mainly to reduce the weight at the sacrifice of the hardness and the rigidity. Looking at just the back of one my lenses, it does look like light material (and sounds light too when tapped---like my brain :-).
Re: *ist D revisited
On 03.6.8 1:51 AM, "Alan Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Alan, you gave me an opportunity to look into the construction of the metal >> barrel lenses ! :-). > > Don't blame me if you broke your lenses. :-) I would not touch my Limiteds, but I was looking at M40/2.8 as an ideal candidate. No, no, no, don't tempt me :-). >> I am almost certain that you are not seeing steel (but I could be wrong). >> As Tom (Rittenhouse) said, the corrosion is an additional factor. Aluminum >> severely corrodes but the anodizing cures it. > > Perhaps I should ask the representative with my next email to Pentax. Will > let you know if they told me the answer. :-) Please. I want to know everything. Cheers, Ken
Re: *ist D revisited
On 03.6.8 0:54 AM, "Gary L. Murphy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If you made that number up, then you are very good. 7075-T6 is the most > widely used alloy in the military aircraft industry. Oh, good. I only knew it was something like 7065 or 7075 or some such, with T4 or T6 suffix. This alloy is used for my certain other hobby and that's why it was vaguely remaining in my memory. Thank you, Ken
Re: *ist D revisited
On 03.6.8 0:10 AM, "Gary L. Murphy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > After 18 years in the aerospace industry, that is exactly correct, Bruce. I do not pretend to be a know-it-all, and leave everything to an expert like you :-), but I thought the aircraft aluminum was usually designated by 7075-T6 (never mind the number itself as I made it up) for the highest strength "alloy" content and then forged (and perhaps tempered again for the stress relief). But again, my knowledge is rusty and this whole discussion is irrelevant to the lens barrel argument (for now). Now I do not understand why this element was thrown in :-). It's late in the night and I realize I was dragged into this and too bogged down for the aircraft Al and lens barrel issue :-). Cheers, Ken
Re: Al barrel (was: *ist D revisited )
On 03.6.8 0:08 AM, "Bruce Rubenstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Aluminum alloy. Real answer. Everybody was assuming we were talking about Al alloys, except perhaps Mr.R :-). No sane mind will assume pure aluminum. If you use this logic, you have to specify the particular kind of steel too. Let's not unnecessarily complicate the matter, OK? Thank you, Ken
Re: *ist D revisited
On 03.6.8 0:07 AM, "Bruce Rubenstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The T stands for temper and has nothing to do with forging. You mentioned Al alloy and aircraft, that almost automatically leads to forged Al. You also mentioned something about "treatment" and "proper treatment" and some such. That is vague enough for you to mention but the aircraft alloys do not go by "T". Alloy part is usually classified by 4 digit numbers, not by T. So, everything is plausibly mixed up as usual. Tempering has nothing to do with the "alloy" but in fact also used for the post machining stress relief of forged materials. But I have absolutely no intention to get involved in the pissing contest with you. I just wish to keep you in check so that you do not spread the wrong and misleading info on things you really do not know, but picked up from the net. Good night, ken
Re: *ist D revisited
On 03.6.7 11:52 PM, "Alan Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Could it be some sort of super rigid aluminum alloy? I > don't think so, but I have no answer. Alan, you gave me an opportunity to look into the construction of the metal barrel lenses ! :-). I am an engineer but certain knowledge is rusty and I am not even consulting with any URL's ;-). So, please don't jump on anything I say here off the top of my head. As far as I remember (regardless of what Bruce said ;-), aluminum alloys has been classified by 4 digit numbers depending on the alloy contents. It starts with 1000 series and up to 7000 series etc, 1000 series being almost pure aluminum (i.e., very soft). In fact, aircraft grade aluminum should be 7000 series (7075 or something lime that).. I really do not know if the different aluminum alloys are used in the different parts of the lens (I seriously doubt it). If certain parts are under a lot of stress, they could be using high strength aluminum but I fail to see why they bother to change the alloy material for the lens construction which I believe is a low stress construction, but I obviously am not a lens designer so I won't go any further. But I am personally interested in what you are reporting and will see if I can find someone who can answer these questions. I am almost certain that you are not seeing steel (but I could be wrong). As Tom (Rittenhouse) said, the corrosion is an additional factor. Aluminum severely corrodes but the anodizing cures it. I just cannot imagine that a lens uses so many different kinds of the same material, but if they do, it would be very interesting to know why. Your observation on thread in the other post is very interesting too. It sounds almost like a "galling' but it does not happen on aluminum. Cheers, Ken
Re: *ist D revisited
On 03.6.7 11:14 PM, "Bruce Rubenstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Referring to a metal as aluminum is about as meaningful as saying it's > made of "stuff". Things are made from aluminum alloys. I already said somewhere that it must be alloy but for the purpose of the discussion in this list, referring to aluminum is good enough. I had no intention to go deeper than that. It is futile. We were talking about Aluminum, steel and brass etc in a general term. > Some alloys have to be treated after machining to attain their proper > characteristics (Aircraft alloys like T4 and T6). You obviously do not know the aircraft aluminum which is used for wing span and landing gear etc. You say "treated" or "proper characteristic" etc ina very general terms but they are NOT 'treated" for proper "characteristics". T series aluminum are forged, and post machining treatment of the forged material is usually for stress relief. But not let's not go deeper than this. It has nothing to do with the lens barreol argument here. Let's just say that the lens barrel is NOT a T series forged aluminum for sure. End of story. Ken
Re: Al barrel (was: *ist D revisited )
On 03.6.7 10:11 PM, "T Rittenhouse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Not likely, heavy, hard to machine, and prone to > corrosion. That's exactly what I thought, but two prominent PDMLers actually saw the material which made me hesitate. However, unanodized aluminum (inner barrel does not have to be anodized, except perhaps some friction parts) could be easily mistaken as a bare steel. Alan said it was easily dented or something which definitely indicates it is aluminum. If the outer barrel is aluminum and the inner ones are of steel, the first thing came to my mind immediately was the different thermal expansion surely causing the distortion and stress particularly in hot summer, not a good recipe for the Limited lenses ;-). Cheers, Ken
Re: *ist D revisited
On 03.6.7 8:53 PM, "Alan Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The inner barrels are steel, just like other good old K/M lenses. But all > the silver coverings aren't. I am becoming curious about this, as I never disassembled a lens myself. Both you and Pål (who actually saw the material) say that the inner barrel is of steel so I believe it. But if the outer casing is aluminum, there could be a problem. If you found definitively what the material of the inner barrel is, please let me know. For now, I assume it's steel (although it's heavier and harder to machine). It was actually Mr.Hirakawa, the designer of the lens, who said that the lens was made of aluminum. I did not think he was distinguishing the outer barrel from the inner one. Is the metal barrel usually of steel or light metal? Ken
Re: *ist D revisited
On 03.6.7 8:39 PM, "Alan Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I am no material enginner. Those worn K/M lenses show silver metal which > can't be brass. I am no expert on the lens barrel either but I once saw a brass helicoid and that's why I was assuming that older metal lens barrels were made of brass, but I also heard that they could be light metal (or alloy), usually aluminum. I cannot believe it is of steel though. Anybody? Ken
Re: *ist D revisited
On 03.6.7 6:58 PM, "Peter Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't remember where I read this maybe Pål but the 43 and 77 had a > different designer or maybe a different design team than the 31. It's probably Pål who brought that info but 43/77 were designed by Mr.Hirakawa (like anybody care :-) and 31 by Mr.forgot-his-name. Mr.Hiarakawa is a lens design guru in Pentax and his design includes many famous FA*s including FA*85/1.4 etc (also 645/67). I was actually looking forward to a 49mm filter dia for 31mm but it was probably an impossible task for a fast wide angle. Anyway Ken
Re: *ist D revisited
On 03.6.7 6:22 PM, "Pål Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But it is only the surface cover. The lens barrel on the 77 and 31 Limited are > made of steel like most FA* lenses. Oh, I did not know that. I was told by Pentax that Ltd lenses are made of aluminum (and glass too :-). They have to carve a helicoid or two and I did not think steel was used. Cheers, ken
Re: Need help from Japan to buy some parts for Pentax FA31 lens(again)
On 03.6.7 5:50 PM, "Alan Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > They said it would take 4-6 weeks to get the > parts. So I guess it will be lying around for the next 2 month... :-( Alan, you seem to be struggling with this problem quite a bit lately and I share your pain :-). Re closing of Vancouver Office, I did not know that, but it could be Pentax's policy to utilize couriers rather than keeping offices. In Japan, they have started some sort of quick turn around time repair service (you apply a repair through internet and a courier sends you a special package for you to pack the equip or something. It's in their Japanese site). It is supposed to work in favour of customers, but I have not seen any feedback yet. From what folks here have been whining and bitching, the closing of any office sounds like a bad news though. Re parts shipment, it sounds like they just put your request on the next order/invoicing cycle and tiny bits of parts will come in a boat with other regular shipment of gears. Type of parts you require could be easily shipped by air parcel (or one of those bubble envelop) if they are kind enough to accept your extra cost for airmailing. But your past experience indicates otherwise, eh? Cheers, Ken
Re: *ist D revisited
On 03.6.7 5:57 PM, "Alan Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If that silver shell isn't soft, I don't know why? Besides, I believe > they used hardened steel on K/M/A lenses (along with some plastic for A), > not brass. I said hard anodized "surface". Aluminium is inherently a soft metal. Once you scratch down to the bare metal, be careful, it's soft. Re K/M barrels, I thought they were of brass those days. I cannot think they use hardened steel as it would be a bit costly to machine. The metal barrel does not have to be super strong as it does not bear much structural stress but should give easier machinability. But I could be wrong. Cheers, Ken
Re: AF, digital and marketing (was Re: *ist D revisited)
On 03.6.7 5:11 PM, "Alan Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There is a also a rumour that only 2000 units were sold, worldwide. Are you sure it's 2,000, not 20?:-). Ken
Re: AF, digital and marketing (was Re: *ist D revisited)
On 03.6.7 10:53 AM, "KT Takeshita" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I do not know but I was always under the impression that Canon buy CCD for > DSLR (Cheaper that way?). I do not think they ever announced who is making > their CCD. Perhaps I can check with someone in Japan. Hi Mark, One of my contacts who is close to Canon confirmed that the CCD for 1D is the outsourced item. He did not say a thing about who makes it (he probably knows but is not telling. Why is it such a big deal?! :-). He also said that Canon "in principle" would be going more toward CCD for their top end DSLRs. Hmmm? Sounds like CCD is becoming cheaper, of higher performance, less power consuming and all the good stuff, perhaps? Cheers, Ken
Re: AF, digital and marketing (was Re: *ist D revisited)
On 03.6.7 9:26 AM, "KT Takeshita" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I just thought of a reason why Canon *might* go to an outside supplier: >> Parts availability. If they can't produce enough sensors themselves >> they'll certainly go to outside suppliers rather than give up market >> share by cutting production. Market share is Canon's overriding goal: >> they want to dominate digital photography. > > Or, the rumoured EOS-3 digital? :-). No (self answering), this could not be right either as this will take away 1Ds's market. Mark, you could be right :-). If CMOS could not do 8fps and Nikon is going to revise D1H with 8ps, then buying 8mp, 8fps CCD would be an answer to Canon. Cheers, Ken
Re: AF, digital and marketing (was Re: *ist D revisited)
On 03.6.7 9:21 AM, "Mark Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I just thought of a reason why Canon *might* go to an outside supplier: > Parts availability. If they can't produce enough sensors themselves > they'll certainly go to outside suppliers rather than give up market > share by cutting production. Market share is Canon's overriding goal: > they want to dominate digital photography. Or, the rumoured EOS-3 digital? :-). Ken
Re: AF, digital and marketing (was Re: *ist D revisited)
On 03.6.7 7:28 AM, "Mark Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Can't be Canon who already has 11mp full frame CMOS. > > It *could* be for Canon...if they want to upgrade the EOS 1D. > Personally, I think Canon will make their own sensor, though... You could very well be right. I did not think Canon would source image sensors from outside at least for their top end one but one problem with CMOS was the lack of speed. But they ma have solved it. If not, they may buy CCDs from other vendors. >> There is a persistent rumour that Contax N Digital has been discontinued. > > Do you think anyone will notice? ;-) Did'nt somebody post Kyocera's official announcement on this ? ;-). Cheers, Ken
Re: *ist D revisited
On 03.6.7 7:23 AM, "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Careful Ken, you're in danger of shooting yourself in the foot. Yeah, yeah, I know. I was just about to exit from my self-righteous BR policing (I never got involved in any flame war stuff in the past but thought BR was going too far in rampage without much checking :-). I made enough points to him, but there is no point in annoying other PDMLers. Cheers, Ken
Re: AF, digital and marketing (was Re: *ist D revisited)
On 03.6.6 11:44 PM, "Caveman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > get it fast and in digital format please, and quality > doesn't matter that much any more This has been true and one of the reasons why Nikon cannot get out of its APS size CCD dilemma. Many are predicting that their DSLR won't (and can't) go full frame any time soon, precisely because most of the current market for their high end DSLR (D1H) is for PJs who do not need higher MP but a speed. It seems that Nikon is going this direction (many more DX lenses will come out) at least for another while. BTW, Matsushita (Panasonic folks) have developed 8mp full frame CCD with 8fps (this is the published fact). People are speculating who this CCD is for. Can't be Canon who already has 11mp full frame CMOS. D1H's successor is said to be D1Z that will have 4mp 8fps. There is a persistent rumour that Contax N Digital has been discontinued. So the plot thickens :-). Cheers, Ken
Re: *ist D revisited
On 03.6.6 5:29 PM, "Caveman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I submit we should do a survey and see why the current PDMLers are > sticking here. I suspect that a large percentage is still with pentax > because they still enjoy the manual focus era cameras and lenses. I do not necessarily think so. I do not think it is all about AF vs. MF etc either. For a real novice who never had an SLR before, they might go to C/N simply because of their name (nothing wrong with it) or Pentax because of the bang for the money, which is also an important factor. But the majority of the members here are experienced ones, far more than average. These are the people who can tell the difference between lenses of different brands, and came to realize a long time ago (way before I did) that the camera spec is not everything. Yes, Pentax spent a lot of resources to cultivate the P&S market to the point where they almost own it ( so to speak) but that's because the market demanded it and Pentax could fulfil it. SLR was a small market, but Pentax has been producing cameras which really fits average people's hands well, and capable of doing most, if not all, of the things. User interface is excellent. For knowledgeable people, that was fine and all they needed. Most of the "modern photography" argument is concentrated on AF performance and Pentax is not up to date in that regard but adequate. But the reason I could not part my PZ-1p is because of its superb (in my opinion) AF performance (I know, I know :-). I experimented many brands and quite a few models but I cannot trade PZ-1p's low light AF focussing ability with anything else, multipoint or not. After using other brands (I still occasionally use them), I formed my habit of using the focus lock which gives me the best confidence that the focus is right where I intended. To me, this is even faster. I do appreciate IS and even eye control (yes, it works for me once you got a hang of it), so I do not dispute that some latest modern conveniences help us. But that does not cause me to sell Pentax and switch entirely to Canon. I like small and portable 35mm cameras like Pentax's. After using MZ-3 with 43Ltd, or even 28-105 PZ, bringing out a Canon with 28-135 IS feels huge. I use 645N for deliberate portrait and landscape shots when I know in advance what I plan to shoot. In other times, the portability is very important for me. F5/1V are totally out of question no matter how advanced the features might be. Absolutely no interest in one of those monsters. I even bring out APS SLRs for outing (well, don't laugh:-). I actually have 2 each of Vectis S-1, Pronea6i and Canon IXe's because they are discontinued and you cannot buy them new any more. I like the concept of cassette for film, and wish they applied it to 35mm. For the usual 4x6 or 4x7, APS gives me more than satisfactory results with the best portability. I can take full advantage of rather limited featured camera. In the reasonably experienced hands, and within certain size of prints, APS is just fine. Vectis S-1 with the accessory cage is unbeatable kit for camping or fishing as it is splash proof (including external flash). If my main 35mm was not Pentax, I would have dumped the whole 35mm and kept 645N for serious photography and APS SLRs for the portability and travel photography. Where 35mm come in would be filled with digital. So, there are different reasons by different people for using Pentax. To say tht F100 is a modern photography equipment and laugh at Pentax is rather pathetic. And finally, Pentax brand has something magic in enthusiasts' mind. In Japan, Pentax has far more respect and experienced people keep coming back to Pentax. So this is my long answer to a short question :-). Cheers, Ken
Re: *ist D revisited
On 03.6.6 6:09 PM, "Bruce Rubenstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It's the Pentax PUB. If you knew that, what's the purpose of your coming in with dirty mouth? You just do not make sense at all on everything. Only reason you are here is because people here tolerate what you could not do in the Nikon List. Ken
Re: Digital vs. film cave test
On 03.6.5 5:33 PM, "Bruce Rubenstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So stop confusing things with facts. Here you go again. Stop confusing things with something you know nothing about. What is the point of you suddenly coming into this without anything useful to contribute? Be specific as others do, rather than mentioning JCO and Twilight Zone etc. What's your point? Ken
Re: *ist D not only one to be delayed
On 03.6.4 3:45 PM, "Roland Mabo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Pentax is not alone, Fuji is delaying also. What a relief! :-) There has been a chronic parts shortage in Japan in the recent few months and the delay was not just by Pentax but across the board. Looking through some of the news articles in Japan, it started as the shortage of lenses for compact digitals. Then SARS hit China, causing the shortage of other parts (no kidding!). There are a lot of parts coming from or being assembled in China (transplanted factories etc) these days and the parts shortage is said to be serious. Most camera makers have 90% of the parts ready but cameras cannot be cameras without the rest 10%. Things like low pass filters and A/D converter chips etc and other small parts are in shortage. CCD is also in a shortage (initial reason why Pentax could not assemble *istD). I interpreted that the components or things to assemble CCD were in shortage. There was a rumour that Nikon tried to steal as many CCDs as possible from Sony which was a deliberate attempt to crush *istD. This is a "rumour" but I tend to believe it as it is a common knowledge in Japan that N always interferes with Pentax. N's DSLR is really lagging behind and they might be a bit desperate? :-). Poor Pentax was hit by this situation just when they were ready to launch *istD. A few months difference in digicam biz is huge and hope Pentax is taking advantage of this slack time to bring their design further forward to meet the expectation at the time of the release. Cheers, Ken
Re: Pentax <--> Canon
On 3/23/03 7:43 PM, "Bruce Rubenstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is it Nikon, Canon or Minolta that pays you to be a Pentax spokesman? Well, my colleagues in Japan have long been seriously suspecting that you must have been paid by somebody to stay in Pentax List and keep farting with no class. Is that one of those cheap NYC camera dealers from where you are getting info from? Behave and govern yourself, BR. Ken
Re: *ist
On 03.3.20 3:40 AM, "Lawrence Kwan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, David R Spaulding wrote: >> It can't be any worse than people asking to see a "Neekon" > > But isn't this closer to how Japanese pronounce it? > As I understand, "Nikon" comes from the original name "Nippon Kogaku". > And pronouncing it as "NAI-kon" is more of the American way. Maybe Ken > can confirm. Hi Lawrence and all, You are right, including the history behind it. It is always pronounced in Japan "Neekon" but with short "I" (Ni-Kon), and it is the correct pronunciation. "NAI-Kon" is North American way of pronunciation and it has been like that as far as I remember. It is like pronouncing "Iraq" as "AI-Raq" (no political comment). Cheers, Ken
Re: Good-bye Pentax (2)
On 03.3.19 5:47 PM, "Carlos Royo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > By the way, as this thread started with Boz's message saying he will > leave the list, I join the chorus to ask him to stay. I'm sure that all > the info he can give us about his experience using Canon cameras and > lenses will be welcomed. I know he will not be sending F.U.D. messages > to the list like some others who have switched to other brands have > done. Hi folks, I think the same way. I am sad that Boz, one of the institutions of the PDML, is going to leave for another brand but that's his decision. But I do appreciate his dropping in here from time time as his time permits and giving us his "honest" opinion about Pentax and Canon too. THAT, I believe, would be very invaluable to all of us, as we all know that he is the expert on K-mount and can give us objective opinions about different brand of cameras and/or comparison with Pentax based on his own experiences, not taken from other internet sites. That will make our discussion more interesting, enjoyable and informative, than just a lot of unfounded slanders with no credibility or authority because of it. However, I do understand that Boz might be too busy to drop by here. Boz, I thank you for giving us such an informative bible site which I hope will be updated and maintained somehow. Cheers, Ken
Re: PDML pub (was Re: Stupid question about M lens on *ist)
On 03.3.19 2:15 PM, "Caveman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Please don't. We're mature enough as to already have an educated opinion > on the little grumpy old man that lurks in the pub's corner. The pub has > some good air conditioning, so we'll pretty much ignore his satisfied > smile after he farts from time to time. Hi Caveman, Of course you are right :-). I was just threatening him to make him know that he cannot send degrading comments about the PDML or PDMLers, private or open. That's why I was not putting them in public. I am not BR :-). Your latter sentence pretty much describes the reaction of the most, if not all, PDMLers. Cheers, Ken
Looking for a new PZ-1p
Hi folks, In spite of all the rage about the upcoming *ist series SLRs, I still love my pz-1p to which I am so accustomed (and attached) to. It has rather antiquated AF system (well, so it is said) but it works for me just fine. Anyway, I thought I should get a second body while the supply lasts. Does anybody know if and where a brand new pz-1p might be available? I thought about a used one but my current one is now well used and feel more comfortable with a new one. If anyone would know how to get a new pz-1p, preferably in Canada, then in the U.S., could you kindly let me know? Thank you, Ken
Re: some bessaflex specs
On 03.3.16 10:57 AM, "tom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is that list price? Yes, Ken
Re: Railroads stations around Toronto
On 03.3.15 4:13 PM, "Nick Zentena" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Which reminds me to ask. Anybody know if any of the old stations in or around > the Toronto area are still standing? Any place somebody could take a picture? Old village of Unionville north of Toronto, close to where we live has a couple of railroad stations. One is a restored station of yesteryear which I think is actually used as a commuter station, and another one nearby which is an abandoned old station if this sort is what you are looking for. Ken
Re: The things we do for money
On 03.3.15 4:29 PM, "Peter Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Actually it sounded like he was looking forward to it. Ah ha! That makes even more sense to me :-). Ken (totally bored under sunny Saturday aft) > At 04:27 PM 3/15/2003 -0500, you wrote: >> On 03.3.15 4:18 PM, "Peter Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> I think the guard was pulling your leg. A real CIA agent would never >>> acknowledge >>> that they were there. They sure as hell wouldn't tell a local security >> guard. >> >> Ah ha! That makes more sense to me. She was not supposed to be there and >> that's why. I wonder how much she paid the security to bribe him :-). >> Sounds like Bill can pretty much ignore the story and does not have to ruin >> his work. >> >> Ken > > Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. >Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx >
Re: The things we do for money
On 03.3.15 4:18 PM, "Peter Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think the guard was pulling your leg. A real CIA agent would never > acknowledge > that they were there. They sure as hell wouldn't tell a local security guard. Ah ha! That makes more sense to me. She was not supposed to be there and that's why. I wonder how much she paid the security to bribe him :-). Sounds like Bill can pretty much ignore the story and does not have to ruin his work. Ken
Re: *ist and the lens mount
On 03.3.14 1:37 AM, "Ryan K. Brooks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I thought that was a GM/Ford thing... Do you know which Japanese cars > talked? > > I remember "Door is Ajar", but I thought that was in some big boat of a car. >From 1986 for about 5 years, I was driving 300ZX Turbo (Nissan), and it was a tlking car. Yes, it did say "door is ajar" (I thought it also said which door), "fuel level is low" and a few other things which I do not remember any more (oh yes, "parking brake is on" and probably something to do with the seatbelts), all in a soft young lady's voice. After a while, it started sounding as if I was scolded by a fussy wife or something and getting a little annoying. Also, the instrument panel was a star wars or video arcade game thing with strange histogram-like vertical bar graph, which occupied most of the front instrument panel, indicating the manifold pressure (I thought it was) which goes up and down constantly. Other indications such as tachometer and speedometer are all digital, and again busy changing constantly. Those days are gone Since then, I came to "hate" digital indications which are not quite intuitive :-). Cheers, Ken
Re: Bessaflex in M42 mount
On 03.3.14 0:35 PM, "Andre Langevin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Hi folks, >> >> http://camecame.ddo.jp/cosina/data/293.jpg >> >> From Cosina >> Stop down metering, magnesium body, finder view 95% >> >> I have no interest but some folks might :-). >> >> Cheers, >> >> Ken > > It reminds the Spotmatic: very different pentaprism but similar body > angles, top plate controls, identical "SW" switch... > > New screw mount lenses are coming then. Do you know which ones? Hi Andre, Yes, it looks like SP/Nikon F fused together. I no longer have any screw mount lenses (last time I had them was when I had an ESII that was so many years ago) and do not know much about the P mount situation now. The camera was exhibited in the PhotoExpo Japan which has just started. See another shot with how the hot shoe is mounted. http://camecame.ddo.jp/cosina/data/292.jpg If I encountered any more info on this, I will let you know. Cheers, Ken
Bessaflex in M42 mount
Hi folks, http://camecame.ddo.jp/cosina/data/293.jpg >From Cosina Stop down metering, magnesium body, finder view 95% I have no interest but some folks might :-). Cheers, Ken
Re: Couldn't Wait for the *ist D (sigh)
On 03.3.14 7:25 AM, "Bruce Rubenstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That's not jpeg artifacts. That's just dust on the sensor. Where did you get this strange info from? Ken
Re: Why I don't believe in the KAF3 mount on *ist D (resent)
On 03.3.13 0:38 PM, "Chris Brogden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Nothing wrong with small and inexpensive cameras. If I want a large and > expensive camera, I'll use my 67 and get a larger negative. If I wanted > or needed a 35mm robocamera, I'd buy a Nikon. I'm not bitter about > Pentax's decision not to make an F5 clone. And people seem to keep buying > the MZ's, so as long as they do that, Pentax has money to spend to > come out with things like the AF 645N II, 67II, and the Limited lenses. > Works for me. Right on, Chris! Ken
Re: Why I don't believe in the KAF3 mount on *ist D (resent)
On 03.3.13 9:06 AM, "Bruce Rubenstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What you want them [Pentax] to do, what they can do and what they will > do aren't necessarily related. Market demand isn't a business case for > Pentax being able to make more money by offering those technologies. This has always been your overtone and preaching, and you do not have to repeat it here. Regardless if Pentax would adopt these technologies or not (I have a reason to believe they do), do you WANT to see them do, or you rather not. That is the big question to you. And your answer to it would determine whether you are in or out, although we know you rather do not answer. Ken
Re: Bug in light metering on 5N body???
There you go, thanks, Ken On 03.3.13 7:18 AM, "Carlos Royo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > KT Takeshita escribió: >> >> 1. Pentax cameras are actually calibrated for either negative or positive >> film. I do not remember which one, but from what you and others are saying, >> it must be calibrated for slides. I thought it was the other way around >> though. I got exact EV range over the entire ISO range. Too bad I no >> longer have it. >> > > The MZ-5 is calibrated for negative film. Z-1 and MZ-s are calibrated > for slides. > >> 2. When you load the film, camera reads whether it is a negative or positive >> film through the metal bar code on the film cartridge. I thought the bias >> is only for the negative film but not as much as 1EV. >> > > The camera can't read in the DX code if the film is negative or slides. > That info is not present in the code. Some cameras, though, can read the > exposure latitude info present in the DX film canisters, and use it. The > first camera to do this was the Z-1 back in 1992, and the MZ-S also > reads the exposure latitude information. > > -- > Carlos Royo > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Zaragoza (Aragon) - Spain > -- >
Re: Bug in light metering on 5N body???
On 03.3.12 5:31 PM, "Bill Owens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I had a similar problem using color negative film when I had a Z5n. Seems > as though the meter is maybe calibrated for slide film. No major problem > though, just set the ISO manually one stop faster. Hi, A few years or so ago, this subject came up in the PDML. I had a chance to ask directly to Pentax Japan and obtained the explanation but unfortunately lost it. As I remember it, it goes like this; 1. Pentax cameras are actually calibrated for either negative or positive film. I do not remember which one, but from what you and others are saying, it must be calibrated for slides. I thought it was the other way around though. I got exact EV range over the entire ISO range. Too bad I no longer have it. 2. When you load the film, camera reads whether it is a negative or positive film through the metal bar code on the film cartridge. I thought the bias is only for the negative film but not as much as 1EV. 3. Canon has the opposite setting/calibration. 4. I do not remember if this intentional calibration was for the entire line of Pentax SLRs or perhaps pz-1p had a opposite setting. I know this does not answer much to your concern (might only confuse you :-), but I know for the fact that there is an intentional bias built into the metering of Pentax camera. Cheers, Ken
Re: KAF3 lens mount already here?
On 03.3.10 4:59 PM, "Pål Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have no idea. Your guess is as good as mine. I'm just reporting what Pentax > says. What it means is a great topic for endless speculation :o) I do not know where Pål is getting the info from but his info usually agrees with what eventually surfaces out in the net in Japan etc (my major source of info :-). So, I tend to believe he must have pretty reliable source of info somewhere in the world which seem to include Japan too. We'll see what he finds and says next :-). I appreciate some stimulating speculation particularly when I am bored. Others may disagree (Some people seem to hate speculation game). Cheers, Ken
Re: KAF3 lens mount already here?
On 03.3.10 4:57 PM, "Pål Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > However, due to massive whining, particulatly in Japan but perhaps also on the > PDML for all I know, Pentax have redesigned some of the lens/camera interfac. I can confirm that this is the FACT. There are certain things Pentax can still tweak, particularly in software/firmware areas, and they said they would not close up the firmware until a day prior to the shipping (whatever timing the "shipping" means). Taking advantage of the proximity to the mfrs, people in Japan are giving a lot of inputs at the Pentax Roadshow etc (I have a feeling that Pentax is holding this somewhat "private" show---private to Pentax Family Magazine subscribers---exactly for this purpose when various other shows are being held and overlapping one after another). I am sure whatever whining or encouragement uttered here is also fed back to Japan. Cheers, Ken
Re: KAF3 lens mount already here?
On 03.3.10 5:04 PM, "Matt Bevers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I just see someone walking into a store an asking for a basic upgrade > to take better pictures than they get out of their film P&S. If their > options are a Minolta Maxxum 4 for $170, a Canon Rebel G for $180,or a > Pentax *ist for $300 - what do you think they are going to pick? Now > imagine the answer if they could also choose a $150 Pentax MZ-60? If someone would walk into a store with the strong mind to save the money or extremely limited budget, they probably have less to care about the brand nor feature etc. At $150 or $180 budget, the potential buyer has very little choice anyway. But this is different from someone cost minded evaluating the "cost/performance". I do not know if the *ist has the value for money comparing with its "true" competition. I tend to think, based on the published info and rave review so far, it does. That does not mean at all that I would buy it :-). Cheers, Ken
Re: KAF3 lens mount already here?
On 03.3.10 5:21 PM, "Bruce Rubenstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm beginning to strongly suspect a bit of translation/terminology > confusion going on here. What was originally meant in Japanese may not > have properly come through in English. If $300 is the cheapest body to > be sold in the US, then Pentax is dropping the biggest part of their > market. I doubt that this is the case. I have not checked any pricing in the U.S. (it was a long time ago when I even peeked into B&H site last time, but in Japan, *ist is touted as Canon Kiss (Rebel) and Minolta Alpha Sweet fighter (or even killer). The pricing in Japan certainly indicates so (I checked it). Mind you, there are several incarnations in both C/M offering (which I lost track of anyway, and have little interest to follow it up now), and only the latest models are compared. I do not know what sort of pricing is prevailing in the U.S. Perhaps some of the models in its near end of life or obsolete models are being sold. Perhaps someone can shed a light. Anyway, *ist is welcomed with quite a fanfare in Japan. Cheers, Ken
Re: KAF3 lens mount already here?
On 03.3.10 5:34 PM, "Alan Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Just imagine, what you > thought you were shooting wide open, but the camera decided to stop down 1/2 > stop for you. :) Looking at the way the actuator behaves, and some kind of positioning encoder is employed, the error, if any, would be more prominent in higher aperture value, not in a wide open position. But I did not design the camera :-). Cheers, Ken
Re: KAF3 lens mount already here?
On 03.3.10 4:28 PM, "Nick Zentena" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 1. *ist is indeed an "entry level" body. It has to be considered a P&S >> camera with a mirror box(!). > > To be honest I don't care what they call it-)) Call it a moose if they want. > If it fits my needs then it's my flagship. Some people are interested in knowing this because it may mean there is no cheaper model, and further means there might be more upscale model coming out. Other than that, you are right. >> 2. But "entry" cameras from major brands are all very well featured these >> days. So you cannot judge it an entry level from the feature set alone. > > How much of that is related to the fact many of the features can be done in > software? I guess most of these things are just programming. 16 segment metering and 11 AF points (9 cross sensors?), for example, are no software matters. >> weight and finish etc) of upscale model, I doubt it but not many people >> would care about those. > > Personally I'd pay more for lighter all else being equal. Some prefer somewhat more weight in the more expensive model than airweight of all plastic camera. Mfrs may still make it as light as possible anyway. Cheers, Ken
Re: KAF3 lens mount already here?
On 03.3.10 2:40 PM, "Matt Bevers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I own three M lenses and I might buy an *ist. I know that Pål insists > that the *ist is "entry level" and therefore in the same class as the > MZ-60 (despite the fact that at B&H the *ist is $299 and the MZ-60 > $149). There are, however, a number of features that make the *ist > attractive to an enthusiast whereas the MZ/ZX-60 is not: Hi, According to Pentax; 1. *ist is indeed an "entry level" body. It has to be considered a P&S camera with a mirror box(!). 2. But "entry" cameras from major brands are all very well featured these days. So you cannot judge it an entry level from the feature set alone. 3. *ist is designed to be able to "grow with" novices who acquire more skill. 4. What differentiate the entry level body from upscale ones is the way it is made. It may not satisfy all the minimum requirements usually observed for the upscale models in terms of tolerance and other elements. But I personally think it is an excellent camera for the money, better than any entry/mid level MZ camera Pentax produced in the past. If you look at the AF/AE features, *ist has everything you wanted and should work very well in the day to day shooting. Whether it has the same "feel" (texture, weight and finish etc) of upscale model, I doubt it but not many people would care about those. >From the price I heard in this list, it seems to be an incredible bang for the money. OTOH., Insistence by Pentax that the first *ist is indeed an entry level model, superior AF/AE system Pentax have developed and from the look of the photos of the machine, all indicate... :-). Just my speculation. Cheers, Ken
Re: KAF3 lens mount already here?
On 03.3.10 1:35 PM, "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If you want it from Pentax, avoid the very bottom end models, as they are > for people who glue their lens on so they won't lose it. No kidding! :-) Reports from Pentax Roadshow indicate that the lens release button on *ist (film) is located differently (location, shape and the direction of push), and this is by design. According to Pentax, it is designed to prevent users from inadvertently touch the button and drop the lens! You know why? William gave the EXACT answer here. Cheers, Ken
Re: *ist v D60 and now the EOS 10D.
On 03.3.8 10:51 AM, "KT Takeshita" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 03.3.8 9:51 AM, "Bruce Rubenstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> The most significant thing that current D60 users are wondering about is >> if the AF of the 10D is improved. > I do not read much about N/C digital forums (in Japan) but I was interested > in 10D in comparison with the coming *ist D and might start dropping in > these "other" forums to investigate what's going on in the "other world". [snipped] > There are a lot of real world examples coming out and one of the things > people are raving about 10D is its high ISO performance (far less noise). > Please take a look at the photo in; > > http://www.thisistanaka.com/diary/new.html I do not peek into these C/N/M forums because they are usually full of crap with flame war, but I do get a lot of info from pro photographers forums like here. Great sources of info. Most of the info I find in Japan which I pass on are usually from pro photographers. Many of them even have their own sites and we can get a great deal of advanced info on equipment as they usually have privilege of getting equipment for beta testing etc. The one I quoted above is from one of those well known photographers in Japan, and he writes everyday (well, almost) his impression on "actual" testing of the latest digicam in a form of "diary" or essay. They are usually short but very pointing and the first hand impression. Unlike other pro photographers' sites wherein most of the talks is on "pro" equipment such as 1Ds etc (there are tons of that info :-), he reviews just about every digicam on the earth. I wish I could translate them everyday (he also has a great style of writing, sometimes downright funny :-) but obviously cannot. His latest diary subject is about Kodak Pro 14n which he obviously got for the testing. Among other things he is saying, good or bad about it, is that it was too bad it was based on F801 and wished it was based on at least F100. Canon 1Ds is based on the top model EOS-1V and he immediately felt the HUGE difference (so he says). As long as DSLRs are concerned, Canon is indeed at least one generation ahead of Nikon who seems to have stopped and been wandering now. We shall see how much Pentax learned from the market and made improvements over others. Talking about Kodak 14n, there are tons of published test info but so far, it appears to be mixed. This CMOS was the product of the joint effort by a small venture in Belgium (FillFactory) and Kodak which eliminated low pass filter and on chip microlens (first adopted by Sony essentially to increase the lost sensitivity due to more pixel density) . But the review indicates that the very elimination of these is actually causing problems such as moire and CA etc which were to be eliminated by their technology in the first place. So, the first full frame sensor on the Nikon based body seem to have a long way to go. Perhaps Nikon is watching how the Kodak effort would go. I only hope that Pentax's earlier attempt to employ full frame sensor gave them invaluable data which should be reflected in the upcoming *ist D. If the CCD is a custom one developed by Sony and Pentax as the rumour has it, I would like to think that those two companies arrested all known problems and made necvessary improvements. Can't wait for their fixing the firmware and announce the firm spec. If I found any beta testing info which should crop up sooner or later, I will of course pass it on. Cheers, Ken
Re: *ist v D60 and now the EOS 10D.
On 03.3.8 0:46 PM, "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I had never thought that the term was a slur of any particular ethnic group, > Japanese or otherwise. Hi William, No, no, the term gadget freak is NOT the exclusive honourably mention of Japanese alone :-). Certainly not an ethnic slur although I used it quite often to laugh at ourselves. Since this was mentioned, I might say (I could be wrong) that Japanese in general might be somewhat more gadget freak than any other tribes and species. It is only evident when you go to infamous Akihabara electronics district in Tokyo. I do not know whether it was because of culture or the general stature (they are getting big these days BTW), they (we?) tend to be good at miniaturization which also feeds this gadget freak culture (yes, it is almost a culture in my opinion). It probably contributed to the advancement of the things like camera and small electronic gadgets. But when it goes to extreme with nowhere else to go, it creates things like, well, button laden M** electronic robot for example. I hope they are reconsidering it though. But that's just my theory and I do not wish to start the whole OT here. Cheers, Ken
Re: *ist v D60 and now the EOS 10D.
On 03.3.8 0:39 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I enjoy using them, but I can enjoy collecting them too. > So don't take the gadget freak comment as an ethnic slur. Most of us here > are a bit of gadget freaks. Hi Bob and all, Oh, no I never took it as an ethnic slur. I did not think BR was THAT bad :-). I was just laughing at myself. I just thought that BR, when I amused myself as a gadget freak which I do quite often (as I have various other hobbies involving some sort of gadgets), was using it to enhance his "know-it-all" attitude. But thank you for your concern ;-). > Bruce is a bit like the odd cousin we all have, a pain in the a** at times, > but still family. True. I thought he was changing a bit and started contributing to the list with more useful posts. In fact, my comment (the one talked about the ISO performance etc) was intended as a reconciliatory one and that's why I started with "Hi Bruce". To tell the truth, I do not have much of the problem with some of his "bad" posts. The only thing I have an issue with is his seemingly degrading remarks on Pentax users. Why do I care whether he tried to degrade Pentax? :-). It's Pentax's problem but not mine :-). But we all know the truth, don't we? Sometimes I am bored and have to stimulate my self-righteous mind to police BR's behaviours in otherwise very decent list, and I am more worried about littering this list with unpleasant and combative posts which I will begin to cease as I thought I made a point sufficiently by now :-). Yes, he is still our family. In fact, I think he wants to return to this list as a more legitimate member after getting sick of other brand and impressed by the return of Pentax :-)). It is about the time to make his return more comfortable isn't it? :-). Cheers, Ken
Re: *ist v D60 and now the EOS 10D.
On 03.3.8 11:16 AM, "Bruce Rubenstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I follow the digital area of a forum for professional photographers. I > am interested in comments and experiences of people who know what they > are doing and use these things all the time. I am not very interest in > opinions of gadget freak spectators. Bruce, I thought I was going to respect "some" of your posts when I felt they were objective, and not hearsay. I have many interests/hobbies and too busy to read many forums. All the forums I read and quote are from pro photographers. I am sure you may be reading some of the pro forums because we can tell much of your info are hearsay from those (which you sometime misunderstood apparently) but it does not make you a pro photographer or knowledgeable. I do not pretend that what I quote is my info but I always make sure that info from me are "quotes". If I do not understand some of the things discussed, I either put a proviso or do not quote at all. One thing I NEVER do is to tell people as if I know everything when I do not. It is very easy to tell if people are saying certain thing based on his true background, training or understanding, or just a hearsay. Most of your posts are apparently hearsay quoted from other forums. You should tell so. This is also the opinion by other experts. They can tell. I can also talk like yours (know-it-all attitude) if I construct my post with all kinds of hearsays. Perhaps I can do it better than you do (problem with the faceless net discussion). But I am too humble to do so (I suppose :-). You have such a hung up with the self-sarcasm word I used, gadget freak, eh? :-). Gadget freak is usually used to stereotype and poke fun of Japanese people and I used it for myself, but why does it have to do with my opinion? In contrast, Pål (and many other people in PDML), for example, speaks based on his own experience and it shows and that's why it has far more credibility than yours and I tend to listen to him more, even though many of his opinion are, ah, "opinionated". If certain things are hearsay and something he learned from somewhere else, he always says so. He construct his "opinion" in a logical way, if you agree or not, and never takes "I know-it-all" attitude, look down upon other people or mix with foul language which shows your upbringing. So, learn from him and other more decent persons and learn to be humble and gracious, like most of people here are. Take a look at your own posts. They all look like copied from some of those "pro forums" you are talking about. Whare is your OWN opinion based on your OWN experience? And since I went this far, I have an advice for you. Just do not self-elevate yourself to a pro photographer as you are not. Don't be intoxicated with you hearsay you are posting, thinking you are above many of PDMLers here, looking down upon them and insult them as if you feel superior to them. It is showing everywhere in your posts. It is disgusting. Just knock off that habit and return to your humble beginning. Cheers, Ken
Re: *ist v D60 and now the EOS 10D.
On 03.3.8 10:51 AM, "KT Takeshita" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There are a lot of real world examples coming out and one of the things > people are raving about 10D is its high ISO performance (far less noise). Re ISO performance of 10D, testing by pro photographers admires that you can't see much noise and difference between ISO 100/200/400, which is excellent in DSLR. Canon apparently included Auto ISO in 100~400 range which is the first in DSLR (popular in digital P&S but their auto ISO do not go much beyond ISO200 I suppose, I do not know. I have to check), which they thought was the indication that Canon was very confident in the ISO performance (noiseless) in this range. Cheers, Ken
Re: *ist v D60 and now the EOS 10D.
On 03.3.8 9:51 AM, "Bruce Rubenstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The most significant thing that current D60 users are wondering about is > if the AF of the 10D is improved. Hi Bruce, Most of the digicams including DSLRs rather have various constraints in AF particularly in locking on fast moving objects etc. I do not know much about D60 but I thought I read about some people complaining having to frequently use AF lock. I do not read much about N/C digital forums (in Japan) but I was interested in 10D in comparison with the coming *ist D and might start dropping in these "other" forums to investigate what's going on in the "other world". 10D's AF is more like EOS 7's less Eye control and Canon's site emphasizes the faster AF with much improved algorithm etc. So, it sounds like they addressed the problem if there was any in that area. There are a lot of real world examples coming out and one of the things people are raving about 10D is its high ISO performance (far less noise). Please take a look at the photo in; http://www.thisistanaka.com/diary/new.html And scroll down to the 4th from the top (a guy jumping with roller blades). It is not clickable but was taken at ISO 1600 to freeze the motion. You can see some noise particularly in darker area but I thought it was excellent. You can also see that the photographer was panning to follow the guy's movement (blurred tree branches in one direction). I do not know which AF mode he was using but 7 point AF is apparently working very well. Talking about ISO/noise, Kodak Pro 14n has been shipped with the firmware still being tweaked (almost in the prototype stage). The worst complaint from those who tested it in Japan is its noise at higher ISO, much like a doomed Contax N1 digital. Those testers (many of them are pro photographers) write it off that images even at ISO 400 are so "dirty" and unusable (obsolete D60 was far far better), although they also say that these could be improved over time as Kodak tweak the firmware. Also, it is said that Kodak Marketing wanted to price it at 500,000Yen level ($4,300 and up) but settled at later half of 600,000Yen ($5,100 and up) to be compatible with Canon's offering (1D ?), i.e., make max money while they can :-). All in all, 10D looks like an excellent camera and I am sure Pentax are well aware of it. The street price of 10D in Japan now is approx.$1,550. Cheers, Ken P.S. Nikon is said to have some problems with the compatibility of their Nikkor lenses with the full frame DSLR which is also apparent in Kodak 14n. I lost the URL wherein there was a lot of discussion about it (I did not understand half of it anyway :-). But this is the reason why they are sticking to the APS size sensor for now, and the Nikon Marketing is quoted saying; 1. they are having difficulties in deciding whether they have to stick to the smaller sensor or what to do with the full frame strategy. 2. they were surprised at the pricing of Canon 10D but the price for D100 is not much more expensive. 3. 10D is larger than D100 which feels much better in hands. 4. they intend to go with D100 for another while. We'll see.
Re: *ist D price issues (WAS: Re: *Ist focusing issues)
On 03.3.6 8:46 PM, "Bruce Rubenstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I didn't say it was a knock off and it doesn't matter if it's similar or > not. It doesn't matter if it has the best interface know to humanity, > because people don't start with user interfaces, or any other technical > detail. A digital SLR, for the general population, is just an expensive > electronic gadget. They want to buy from a company that they know makes > "good" electronic gadgets, or a camera brand that has such good name > recognition that they already know it. Pentax is neither. Pentad's name > recognition starts with Spotmatic and ends with K1000, with nothing in > between. If Pentax's DSLR sales are just dependent on long time Pentax > users then they'll sell about as many as Minolta did of their Maxxum 9's. This is merely your usual view/perception of Pentax, which includes a great deal of your own speculation (and perverse remarks). In other words, the story as told by a person who does not wish to admit that pentax would have a great deal of chance to succeed in spite of his past position. Nothing more than that. Please don't inflict your distorted view on us as if they are the facts, as they are not. In the country like Japan, the digital world is in somewhat of a chaos (and reshuffled) in that so many mfrs are flooding the market with the constant release of new products in such a fast turn around time. Brand power is still there but not as much as it used to be when the "camera makers" were dominating the camera market. People became knowledgeable and they do examine the spec etc in quite a detail. Digital fever is accelerated with the proliferation of broadband connections. And this is why the North American market suddenly became the most important one for the digicam makers. By the sheer number of potential users of digicam, the U.S. market where the broadband connection is widely available is where the digital war would be fought and this is why many mfrs announce their new products "first" in the U.S.A. even before they do so in the home market. You seem to try to describe the DSLR market something totally different from other digicam (P&S) market, Why? C/N/P/M do not think so. In fact, they are feeling the heat because the market is being reshuffled. Wise consumers do not choose the digicam, especially DSLRs by the brand name alone any more. We can argue all day that the investment in the lenses will also determine which brand consumers will buy, which is true but people who have any significant number of lenses are enthusiasts, the selected few. But the vast majority of SLR users have very little number of lenses and they are much easier to change the system and they change the system all the time. DSLR at least at this stage is an expensive investment and it is true that for that very reason, people might play safe and go for the established brand, but by and large, what's happening in the real world, as far as I can observe from the media report etc, people are not rushing to C/N only because it is either C or N product. They are much smarter than that. And no one brand is particularly superior any more. Also, you have to know that it won't be too long before you start seeing Sony DSLR with Zeiss lenses and Panasonic DSLR with Leica lenses etc, and C/N/P know that. The market is being reshuffled at least to a certain extent. Old school thoughts don't apply here any more. Cheers, Ken
Re: Pentax issues (WAS: Re: *ist D price issues (WAS: Re: *Istfocusing issues))
On 03.3.6 7:19 PM, "Pål Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I believe an "LX with AF" (whatever that means) may be coming as Pentax is > apparently toying with OTF metering again! This could be the logical next step, and a lot of people in Japan apparently think so too (perhaps with a great deal of wishful thinking as well :-). After all, Pentax obviously significantly upgraded their AF and AE in the *ist line of SLRs. These upgraded performances are actually almost incompatible with the entry level lines. They must have plans to apply them in the upscale models. The year just started and there have been a lot of talks of more products to come. Pentax at least (or appear to have) announced the long waited DSLR with a bunch of other superior digital products. With the dust started settling now (in the world of PDML), perhaps we should relax a bit and watch how the future unfolds in the coming months :-). Cheers, Ken
*ist AF sensors
Hi folks, Those who attended the Pentax road show reported that all AF sensors except outermost two of the middle row (5) is cross sensor, i.e., 9 cross sensors and 2 horizontal. Hard to believe but that's what they are reporting, alleged to be told by Pentax staff there and some checked it by themselves. Also, the mount of the FMJ lenses is indeed of plastic. Cheers, Ken
