Re:storative
Friends, I have to tell you something. Sometimes I just get so fed up with the level of CRAP all around us that I start to melt down. I spent a good hour tonight on a thing called PhotoSig.com, where I was subjected to near-fatal doses of treacle in the form of endless #$%! cat pictures, sunsets, and oversaturated color pictures of misty meadows. I was boiling down into a worse and worse mood when, just by pure chance, just surfing around completely in the dark, I happened to land on this little photo essay here: http://home.imcnet.net/~waltsman/dad1.HTML I have to say, this is what I think photography is. And is good for. Sad as it is, tragic as it is, the experience of looking at this little photo essay restored my faith in photography for the evening, just when I thought nothing could. Check it out if you like. The photographer's name is Gary Walts. --Mike
Re: *ist D lens compatibility
> i see you haven't made it to the $1K/meter pairs yet. > > Herb. >> Yeah, I know what you mean. I'm connecting two computers to our "good" >> speakers. The setup requires several pairs of cables, and the more I read, >> the more I realize that a cheap cable can nullify my investment in good >> speakers and sound cards. It's bizarre to read epinions.com and find a pair >> of $60 1-meter cables described as entry level Heck, that's nothing. Ray Kimber of Kimber Kable marketed a pair of speaker wires that cost $15,000. I'm NOT making this up. --Mike
Re: OT-Thrifty Schwabs-was:Hello and thanks to Pentax for the*ist D
> There was and continues to be a large German population in > Berlin/Kitchener. I had many friends whose families originated in > Schwabia. "Economical" is a very polite description of them.And > yes, more "economical" than the Scots, I'd say... I feel compelled to defend the ethic honor of Scotland...my father paid $260,000 cash for his house in 1976, when that was still rather a lot of money for a house, but he used to dry his hands after washing them on one square of paper toweling. After drying his hands, he would lay the square of paper toweling out on the counter to dry, so it could be re-used. His reasoning was that his hands were _clean_ when he dried them, so the paper towel hadn't been dirtied and there was no reason not to use it again. When his brother died, Dad had been retired for years, and no longer owned a pair of dress shoes (he preferred sneakers). So rather than buy a pair of dress shoes just for the funeral, he took a Sharpie laundry marker and laboriously colored a pair of his sneakers black. What say ye, do we gi' the Schwabians a run fa' their money? --Mike
Re: *ist D price issues (WAS: Re: *Ist focusing issues)
>>> That I agree with. For Pentax to go anywhere with this digital, it >>> must be SIGNIFCANTLY cheaper than the Canon 10D. > > PJ> But I don't agree with it! I don't think pentax will be cheaper than the > Canon unless Canon deliberately would want to rip their customers off. Canon > have far larger market share and higher > PJ> volume than the Pentax. It probably also have less features and use a > simpler AF system. I cannot imagine the *ist D is going to be cheaper. > Besides, being as keen on volume that Canon is, and > PJ> the fact that every manufacturer knows that the key to profit to DSLR is > to get volume up so that it becomes a mass commodity, I'm certain Canon will > be in the forefront of "cheap" DSLR. I'm sure > PJ> they won't sit still loosing market share because someone is undercutting > them. > > >>> That is the best >>> distinction that could be made. It also is in keeping with what >>> people think of Pentax. > > PJ> But that is whats "killing" them. Having cheap customers won't get them > anywhere. What worries me is what the cheapness anticipation indicates. What > lies behind it is the belief that Pentax > PJ> aren't "worth" much, therefore they must be "cheap". This is the > undercurrent of all those net discussion of the *ist D, and I'm surprised that > people doesn't notice this. After all, theres > PJ> nothing in the *ist D specification that indicatetes that it is cheaper > than the Canon, but still people think it is in spite of the fact that hardly > anyone can compete with Canon on price. > > >>> On count 1, they have succeeded. I haven't heard anyone saying that >>> it seemed to really suck. On count 2 the jury is out. If the price >>> is ballpark of a $1000 or so, they will have a hit. People will buy >>> it - not just Pentaxians. If it is close to the Canon D10 street >>> price (200 or less) then only Pentaxians will buy it. > > PJ> And thats what I have been saying all the time. Theres nothing in the *ist > that makes it more worth than a Canon or Nikon. However, I do not at all > believe that the *ist D will be particularly > PJ> cheap or sufficiently more competitively priced than comparable > Nikon/Canon. Why should Pentax be able to offer a DSLR cheaper than Nikon and > Canon when they both are making more DSLR's and are > PJ> constantly pushing the price envelope? I don't know what this assumption > in based on. Sure the jury is still out when it comes to price but I believe > the Pentax *ist D will be priced similarly to > PJ> the Canon 10D. At least, I can't find no reason to assume otherwise, but > still people do just that. Pål I personally don't expect the *ist D to be less expensive than the 10D. As long as it's not too much more, it will be all right. I doubt anyone would bother about an extra hundred dollars when it comes to buying the camera that's right for them. --Mike
Re: OT: More Leica Lust
> I also need cameras that I can shoot with > when I just want to play with something wonderful. Man, isn't the Leica MP simply the apotheosis of that? What a lovely thing. I'd kill for a black one. Well, not really, but you know what I mean. --Mike
Re: Olympus going pro
> How can you call it original when it looks exactly like its ZLR models? > Whether the lens is interchangeable or not, people can't tell without > close examination. To most people's eyes, this is NOT an original design. > We saw it before in Minolta Dimage 7, Nikon Coolpix 5700, FujiFilm S602... > And many would even confuse it with its own E10 and E20. Well, you have to look beyond the basic shape. Underneath the surface, the E-10 was a very innovative, fresh-thinking design. --Mike
Re: Five things I love about Pentax
Yeah, Nikon hasn't made a good 50mm for many years. That's what drove me to Pentax, incidentally. --Mike > The bokeh on my 50mm AF f/1.8 Nikkor made my eyes hurt. > > Mike Johnston wrote: > >> yellow varnish over the Nikon's viewfinder screen. >> >> Too bad I'd have to use Nikkors on the darn thing. I really like the N80.
Re: Five things I love about Pentax
> 1. I can probably use an Asahiflex lens on the DSLR. If not, it will work > fine on an MZ-S. > > 2. The joy of focusing almost any Pentax M, K, or screwmount lens. > > 3. The LX. 'Nuff said. > > 4. The 6x7II. Wow. > > 5. The Limited lenses. I don't shoot AF any more, but *someone* should > make lenses like this for AF cameras, and I'm glad it's Pentax. > > > Anyone else? Only one of those things concerns recent developments, unless you count backward compatibility as being something new I was out looking at Nikons and Minoltas this afternoon...has anyone seen the Maxxum 7? I was really impressed by it. It's tremendously overloaded with a zillion features--it's really a feature-lover's camera--but the viewfinder was large by current standards and so much brighter than the N80's (in a relatively dark camera store) that it was almost difficult to believe. AF was extremely good, too. The thing I really like about the N80 is how quiet and vibration-free its shutter is. But compared to the Maxxum 7 it's like there's a thick coat of yellow varnish over the Nikon's viewfinder screen. Too bad I'd have to use Nikkors on the darn thing. I really like the N80. --Mike
Re: What's with this?
> > http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=15240&item=2914332704 > &rd=1 > > See center photo. > There's a big ol' Asahi logo on the front of the prism ! How can you tell? I swear, it's AMAZING to me how people selling PHOTOGRAPHIC equipment can do such a God-awful job taking simple product shots for eBay auctions. It's no wonder they're getting rid of cameras. Sheesh. --Mike
Unretitled outlaw thread, WAS: pentax-discuss-d Digest V03 #59
>> The equipment is periodically inventoried by forces outside of our group. >> But it doesn't have a NIST number, it has an NBS number (the National >> Institute of Standards and Technology used to be the National Bureau of >> Standards), and a tech I talked to said she thinks they threw out the NBS >> records and don't track that equipment any more. I'll have to try to find >> out more. >> >> Ah, bureacracy! > > Yup, gotta love it. Personally, I'd consider "borrowing" the camera, > putting in a few hours of unpaid OT, and calling it even. Like I say, wait till they ask for it back. I mean, we're not talking about specie here. We're talkin' a Spottie. It's obsolete even by government standards. --Mike
Re: *ist D & Pentax prime lenses
> My favourite lens for use with a 35mm SLR is a 35mm F2. > > From the Pentax prime lenses available at present which is the most > suitable for use with the *ist D that will give me more or less a 35mm > equivalent.? About a 24mm. But if you don't want to buy the 24/2 FA, wait till next Fall--Pentax may have something new for you. --Mike
Re: OT: More Leica Lust
Raimo, >From the MP brochure: "With the name MP, the new Leica rangefinder camera joins the line of reporter cameras that have been specifically tailored to the wishes of professional photographers." Make what you will of that. I'm presuming it means it's for photojournalists. --Mike > Not this one - the original MP was professional, though. From the Leica list I > remember it means Maximum Precision or something like that. > All the best! > Raimo > Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho > > -----Alkuperäinen viesti- > Lähettäjä: Mike Johnston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Päivä: 04. maaliskuuta 2003 14:21 > Aihe: Re: OT: More Leica Lust > > >>> I had thought MP might stand for 'Magnum Photos', but probably not. So >>> what does the P stand for? Pretty? Professional? Primitive? >>> Pretentious? >> >> >> Photojournalist. >> >> --Mike
Re: *ist D lens compatibility
> I honestly think that Pentax would be shooting themselves in the foot > with a lens mount which is not backwards compatible. They've already announced that it will be compatible. They even specified that it will be compatible with _screwmount_ lenses, which I got a real kick out of (the average photo enthusiast doesn't even know that there _was_ an M42 Pentax screwmount). > The *ist-D seems > ideal for the current-Pentax-owning enthusiast, and most of those would > be unlikely to purchase expensive new lenses just for the digicam. If > you need to replace your lenses for a d'cam why would you replace them > with Pentax ones? Why not just buy a Canon 10D with Canon lenses? Because we don't _like_ Canons. --Mike
Re: The LCD of the *istD can obvioulsy be used as a viewfinder
> That's exactly why I fear that the ISO range will top out at 400: If it were > higher, Pentax would have said so. It isn't determined yet. As I said elsewhere, don't read tea leaves...lots about this camera is not yet set in stone one way or the other. Wait for the production models. --Mike
Re: Olympus going pro
> That's why I > say, that these lenses presented by Olympus aren't as small as they could > be, taking in consideration, that they produce smaller circle of light. My guess is that these Olympus lenses will cover APS and probably 35mm as well. Olympus is hedging its bets. If it commits an entire lens line to 3/4rds and the format tanks, it's really high and dry. It's the safe thing to do. --Mike
Re: OT: More Leica Lust
> I had thought MP might stand for 'Magnum Photos', but probably not. So > what does the P stand for? Pretty? Professional? Primitive? > Pretentious? Photojournalist. --Mike
Second Time Lucky?
http://www.imaging-resource.com/EVENTS/PMAS03/1046271605.html --Mike (And thanks again, Ken T.!)
Re: OT: Leica Lust
> That´s going to be expensive. Rarish collector´s item, 1.000-1.500 USD I > guess. Yes, Leica prices are notoriously subject to the winds of fashion. The IIIg, because it was the last and considered therefore the "best" of the screwmounts, was for many years the preferred body of shooters who chose to keep shooting screwmount. So it was always more expensive. By now this is simply convention, carried along by the monkey-and-ladder effect. But to this day you'll pay as much for a IIIg as for a used M6. Silly, but there it is. --Mike
Re: All Is Right In The Pentax World!
> It's 'the dog's bollocks' as we also say. > > As opposed to the Contax N1 which is the dog's dinner. > > :-) Cotty, [insert secret Hundred Percenter handshake here] Isn't a "bollock" a large lumpen bovine creature of some sort? How can a dog have one of those? There are two cameras called "N1" in Contaxville. One is the AF film camera, which is just the "Contax N1," and the other is the digital camera that languished in final production eternally until its moment had passed. It's called the "Contax Digital N1." I suppose the latter is the dog's dinner. --Mike
Re: FS: some classic lenses
> Hm, not a sin... > In my case I'm not shure about that. I've long been using the M 85/2.0 > and now have the FA*85/1.4 - do I still need the M 85/2? > Not shure... > What would one get for such lens? One could get as much as $50! Send me your M85, I'll send you a check immediately! No? A I tried, --Mike
Re: All Is Right In The Pentax World!
> You may think what you like but the fact is that never have there been > released a DSLR that created less interest. That's just not true. It's creating a LOT of interest. --Mike
Re: Olympus going pro
>> I'm old enough to remember when the Canon EF system was released. There >> was no pro body. Only two amateur bodies that was in no manner better than >> the competition. And only 12 lenses. > Utter nonsense. You need a fact checker on this one. > The EOS 650 was the first of the EOS cameras. Somebody doesn't have his listening ears on. Go sit in the corner, Wheatfield. He said "EF," not EOS. The EF came out in 1973. --Mike
Re: Dedicated lenses for DSLR
> Mike, > >> >> I beg to differ. Having taken two photograph classes >> recently, everyone is >> interested in digital. Why? It's new. The color >> comes out sharp. And one can >> print one's own prints -- that is extremely >> attractive. Not just women are >> interested in that. >> Again, I didn't write that. That message was from Marnie. --Mike
Re: Olympus going pro
> When Canon introduced the EOS, it > was VERY ground breaking; no one had anything like it, > and AF was in it's infancy. No it wasn't. The first EOS was the EOS 650, introduced in March 1987. Canon was the third major manufacturer to switch to AF, after Minolta and Nikon, not the first. I would say the first EOS wasn't introduced until AF had become mainstream. And at first, the only result was voiciferous complaining and an exodus of longtime FD users. The EOS line didn't really start to gain any momentum until the 630 came out, and it didn't make any impression on pros until the EOS-1, which was an AF adaptation of the T-90, arrived in the Fall of '89. --Mike
Re: FS: some classic lenses
> I am considering selling the following lenses; most in very good condition > unless otherwise noted: >[snip] > 85/1.8 TBD Still not sure I can bear to part with it. Johnston's Seventh Law of Photography: "Never sell a good lens." --Lawbreaker Mike
Re: FS: some classic lenses
> Oh, oh, oh, I know exactly how you feel! > I have a 77 ltd an M85/2 and an 85/1.8 > I know that one has to go and that it has to be the 85/1.8 but I just can't > make myself do it. Well then DON'T! It's not a _sin_ to have three different medium telephotos, you know. --Mike
Re: "ist D" marketing
> Nope. Some of the most respected Car magazines world-wide call these cars > utterly pointless and only for those with aversion to money. This is of course > taking it a bit too far, but according to the japanese car manufacturers what > sell well Europe sells well everywhere. Nobody in their right mind buy a Camry > when you can get a Mercedes Benz, BMW, Audi for the same money. I wasn't aware > the US was the world leader. When it comes to cars theres no dispute that > Europe is best when to comes to technology. Not when it comes to cameras, my Eurocentric friend. And the U.S. would beat the snot out of you guys with cars, too, if most of our best engineers didn't go to work for defense contractors. One reason the Japanese do so well is that all their best engineers go to work for consumer-goods firms. And of course Ford now owns Jaguar. Who owns Volvo and Saab? The car industry in Britain is in parlous shape, and with the exception of Ferrari, I don't see very many people bragging about Italian cars. Take away the Germans, and your argument disintegrates. --Mike
Re: "ist D" marketing
> Dodger/Chrysler who have attempted to > make such radically different looking cars are not > doing so well now in the market. Why? All show & no > go. The quality of Dodge stinks, and people catch on > quick. A funky image can only go so far. Amen, brother. I bought a Dodge Neon Sport on the basis of David E. Davis's _Automobile_ magazine naming it "Car of the Year" several years ago. It was a really nifty car...when it was new, and for about six months. By the time it was a year old, it felt like an old car. Actually, it felt _worse_ at the end of three years than my first car, a Mazda, felt after nine years! Not only will I not buy a Chrysler again, I also will never listen to _Automobile_ magazine again. --Mike
Re: All Is Right In The Pentax World!
> I thought his major assumption was that consumers won't buy a product if > something else out there looks kind of the same. > I suppose it's unfair of Pentax to make the think look like a camera. > It's so unfair to confuse people that way. The thing that gets me is that Pål is flooding the list with his, er, "idiosyncratic" opinion, and drowning out a more reasoned reaction--which is that the *ist D is a really swell looking little camera, a lot nicer looking than the plastic *ist in my opinion. It looks "the business" to me, as our British cousins would say. I think they hit a home run with the looks of the thing. I would certainly not be ashamed to be seen with it. --Mike
Re: whats wrong with this picture?
> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2915319475&category=4688 Wow, that's interesting. Could be a very rare transition sample from the changeover to the rubberized ring. More likely, it's just had its front ring replaced --Mike
Re: Pentax digital future
> Well it's like it's always is on the PDML. People asks for a DSLR, otherwise > they're going to jump the ship. Pentax shows the DSLR, and people still > consider to jump the ship, because the *ist D "can't compete with Canon > anyway". Come on, the product isn't finished yet. The final specification > list is not ready. Somehow I feel that Pentax has some surprises hidden up > their sleeve. Yeah, and besides, I don't care what anyone says, that's a handsome little camera. It looks like it would be _very_ comfortable to hold. I should get a report on that soon. --Mike
Re: my 35-45mm digital dilema what lens???????
> i currently use the 43mm limted and love it > however it "becomes" a 65mm with 43mm perspective on the new dslr. Again, where did this idea come from? Perspective doesn't change as long as you're standing in the same place. The 43mm on the DSLR becomes a 65mm, period. There is no change in perspective as you change focal lengths. --Mike
Re: Dedicated lenses for DSLR
Again, this is from Marnie, not from me: >> In a message dated 3/2/2003 7:59:48 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So here my thoughts.. People who buy a digital *ist would already have a net connection as a minimum reason, have a Pentax film body with several Pentax lenses and have a powerful enough P4 to edit digital pixs using Photoshop or Elements. They also want the *ist D to do Giclee printing.. That's a whole art to doing this which I won't go into details. I'm sure several pros had eluded to the fact that Giclee printing from a digital camera can be superior to conventional printing as reported by the FLAAR report. All being equal, you must be an expert on this field, which neither a normal joe consumer have, expertise wise. Rick... I beg to differ. Having taken two photograph classes recently, everyone is interested in digital. Why? It's new. The color comes out sharp. And one can print one's own prints -- that is extremely attractive. Not just women are interested in that. But mainly it's new. You are seriously underestimating people's desire for new toys. This is why digital is reviving people's interest in photography, period. It's a new technology which makes it a whole new ball game. And that game is attracting people new to photography or those that have a SLR but who haven't used it much. And I think someone who mentioned earlier that those currently using Pentax P&S and Pentax Digital P&S will first turn to Pentax for a DSLR, was exactly right. Adults like new toys too -- especially electronic ones. Otherwise everything is too grim and serious and responsible all the time. Doe aka Marnie ;-)
Re: any one tried the SL line of lenses from Voightlander for slrs
> You missed the 90/3.5. http://www.cosina.co.jp/90sl/ > > I think Rob is the only one the PDML has one of this lenses. You want one? > Try this http://www.cameraquest.com/. Nope, I owned the 75/2.5 SL in Pentax K mount. Sold it to a PDMLer, although I regret I've forgotten who. --Mike
Re: The Hundred Percenters
> Many years ago (1978) I got my first camera - Pentax MX. (This was love at > first sight.) Then came the 6x7. Initially I used transparencies almost > exclusively until I discovered Fred Picker and took his Zone VI workshop in > Vermont. Since then I have been photographing and printing in B&W almost > exclusively, mainly Tri-X, XP-2 Super and APX100. I say almost since I > still use colour negative film for family snapshots (does this count?), but > for anything else it is fiber paper only. So, do I qualify? Andrew, we have to have a vote of the membership. I vote "Aye." Cotty, what say ye? --Mike
Re: an interesting view on bokeh VS sharpness
> "...For those of you who may not know, I was responsible for introducing > the term _bokeh_ to photographers in America" > > WoW! Blow me down! That's GREAT minutia, Mike! Bless you - I'll > treasure this knowledge till I die! Thanks, John, it was my forty-five seconds of fame. --Mike
Re: Clean bill of health for the 120mm!
> I would say there's no reason to be afraid of a lens > with fungus (as long as the shop knows what they're > doing). Just my thoughts... Steve, Just your thoughts for NOW. Talk to us in another two years when the fungus is coming back...and four of your other lenses also have it Be careful, --Mike
Re: Soft Lenses
> soft focus lenses as well as shift lenses are obsolete > due to photoshop IMHO. Except soft-focus lenses and shift lenses have ALWAYS been obsolete. Well, actually, soft-focus lenses have only been obsolete since about 1910. But view cameras have always been better than shift lenses. --Mike
Re: What film do you use?
> Yup. I am thinking of trying my hand at hand coating my own sheet film this > year. ...While wearing his hair shirt and flagellating himself with a cat o' nine tails. And every now and then, bonking himself on the forehead with a wooden psalter tablet --Mike
Re: Dedicated lenses for DSLR
> Lets just assume that in the case of APS vs 35mm sized sensors similar physics > pixies are at work that make 67 a more resolute and higher quality yielding > media than 35mm film (all else being equal of course). But I'm saying, let's not assumebecause all things are never equal. With sensors, for instance, there has for a long time been a definite size limitation that has made 36x24mm sensors very difficult to implement. It's true those limitations may be overcome, but let's wait to see it happen before we decide. It's not just a question of more acreage being better. --Mike
The Hundred Percenters
NOW FORMING The PDML Hundred Percenters Club, for those netizens who shoot 100% black-and-white. We have two members already. Anybody else wanna join? --Mike
Re: What film do you use?
> Hi Malcolm, > > 100% black and white film. Ilford Delta 400. Cotty, We should form a "Hundred Percenters" club. I already belong to a club called the "Blackliner Society" (we like the initials) here in Milwaukee. This consists of me and my friend Nick meeting for lunch every so often to chat about pictures. The name refers to the black film-edge of a 35mm full-frame print --Mike
Re: How does Pentax fit into the Japanese market?
> Sometimes, they drop a couple of > features from the U.S. models, although I do not know how much they could > save the money by doing so, and they might lose some markets by doing so, I > do not know. Ken, This is done for patent reasons. Features that infringe on U.S. patentholders' rights have to be left out of U.S. models. Very generally speaking, Japanese companies make "arrangements" over the sharing of patents. U.S. companies expect to be paid money. Often this keeps certain features out of the U.S. market. --Mike
Re: And now, for something completely different.....
> Peter Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> At 05:14 PM 3/1/2003 -0500, you wrote: >>> Peter Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: At 10:27 PM 2/28/2003 -0600, you wrote: > A Pentax LX, adapted to a Nikkor lens. It does take pictures. > > http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/pentikon.html >>> It's amazing what you can do in woodshop. >>> >>> Is that one of those alternatives to Photoshop? Where can I download a >>> copy? >>> :-P >> Sadly it seems to be a lost application. > > Pity. I thought it might be something for keeping a "log" of your photo > activities. You wood think that. --Mike
Re: an interesting view on bokeh VS sharpness
> Bokeh, as I understand it, is controlled mainly > by the aperture blades No, not really. The aperture blades have an effect on the shape of specular out-of-focus highlights, but the essential characteristics of _bokeh_ have more to do with off-axis aberrations and correction of spherical aberration. So it's essentially part of the lens design itself. The idea that it's all a matter of the aperture blades is a nice simple idea that is gaining some sway on the internet, but it's not really that simple. --Mike
Re: Dedicated lenses for DSLR
> You aren't going to get > full-frame quality from an APS-sized sensor no matter what lens you > stick on it. This statement contains a premise that I don't think has been demonstrated yet. It's still an assumption, and may not be correct. We only have two full-frame DSLRs. One is 11 mp and the other is just now out on the market. I don't think there's sufficient basis for concluding that a 35mm-sized sensor is inherently better than an APS-sized sensor, EVEN IF you _had_ made real-world comparisons, which I know you haven't. There are just too many other variables involved at present to support such a conclusion. --Mike
Re: All Is Right In The Pentax World!
Not to ignore the content of Shaun's message, however--I agree with you Shaun. The fact is, when you have only one product, you need to make sure it is mainstream. If you try to make it too "different," it will probably appeal to too few people. The *ist D looks to be very well-judged in this regard--different enough, but also mainstream enough. Also--I know I keep saying this--but size matters to the impression the camera will make in person. Sometimes things that look ugly or clumsy in close-up photos look good in person because they're small. I've been fooled by this a couple of times since the dawn of digital. --Mike > Who cares what the bloody thing looks like...just be greatful that > Pentax are in the race, if you don't like what it looks like, that's OK > Pal, but it really doesn't matter what the damn thing looks like...it's > what it will do. If you don't like the look of it...buy Nikon or Canon > and be done with it. It is really unfair to lambast something before > anyone has even held one. I, for one, am confident that this thing will > be a nicely sorted little unit by the time it hits the market. I will > buy one, maybe not in the first few weeks, but certainly some time this > year. The fact that there is a DSLR at all is something to rejoice > about, as it just saved as all gazillions of (insert your currency here) > changing bloody lenses and accessories...
OT: typos
> Let's wait and see how thongs pan outshall we? I love typos. The other day a friend of mine wrote to me about a new limited-edition Leica and he typed "costmetics" instead of "cosmetics." Talk about an appropriate mistake! --Mike
Re: What film do you use?
> Almost totally B&W. Agfa APX 100 maining. Other then the fact it's almost > free here in Canada it also looks great. I haven't shot that film in years, but it really does look great. Oddly, it makes a really nice match with Kodak T-Max P3200 shot at E.I. 1000 and processed in T-Max Developer. Shoot APX 100 in bright light and P3200 in low light and the prints end up "matching" each other in terms of overall "look" surprisingly well. I'll have to compare the film curves someday and try to see what's going on with that. --Mike
Re: A high end audio analogy...
> Must be over ten years ago but Radio shack one year sold a portable CD > player. Some one noticed that it came with a digital output. Soon enough > this $100 player got written up in the high end audio rags. Radio Shack > stores all across North America sold out. All over high end setups used a > little Radio Shack portable for CD transport. Heh. That was Tom Gillette, a.k.a. "Sam Tellig," of _Stereophile_. He's the marketing / mailinglist genius behind _Stereophile_'s resurgence in the '80s when Larry Archibald owned it. I don't know how he does it--and I've tried to analyze it--but the guy could sell snow to an Eskimo. --Mike
Re: What film do you use?
> What percentage of film do you use in B&W? 100% --Mike
Re: Pentax National Sales Meeting
> 21,000 Optio S' ordered already? Holy *ist! > > I'd be curious how many *ist film & digital cameras > get ordered after the PMA. Well, for the *ist D, the number will be "none." The *ist D's aren't available for ordering. It's announced only, with release for July. I don't know about the *ist film camera. --Mike
Re: Loupes???
>> Observation: the more famous the organization/publication, the worse the >> loupes are that they use there. I remember visiting a studio in NYC where >> they must have had $400,000 worth of equipment, and they were using cheap >> $8 >> Agfa loupes to check transparencies. > > Could it be people were stealing the expensive loupe far too often, they > just gave up and used something people wouldn't steal? That's it all right. --Mike
Re: Being real-*istic
> I disagree (respectfully). Canon changes their body line too fast for out of > date equipment to be worth anything in more than a couple of years. Add to > that their history of orphaning their customer base entirely, and their junk > optics (bokeh that makes Yassir Arafat look like a beauty queen), and Canon > is just about the worst camera investment going. Of course, the cheaper things get, the less you stand to lose. Case in point: early adopters of the Canon EOS D30 have lost more cash than the entire cost of the EOS 10D. The D30 has gone from an as-introduced price of about $2900 to about $1000 in three years, for a loss in value of about $1900, give or take. Of course that doesn't account for the use of the camera in the meantime, or for the savings in film and processing. Also, it doesn't account for the current volatile state of the technology, in the sense that any given three-year period may not be a very good indicator of performance in any other three-year period. Canon lenses generally have very good _bokeh_, however. --Mike
Re: Hands up and be counted
> Am I the only one wondering when $2k became a budget camera? If I was going > to spend $1500 right now [forget $2k] I'd be trying to decide between the > Pentax 6x7, the Mamiya 645e and the Fuji 6x9 and not really thrilled with any > of them. I wouldn't be looking at a camera that on a good day might equal a > spotmatic in quality. Well, how much did a Spotmatic cost new, and what is that amount adjusted for inflation? My guess is that it's not terribly far off from $1500. --Mike
Re: 85/1.8 v. 85/2 for portrait - EX: Tradeoffs: old vs. new,FA77/1.8 vs. K85/1.8
> If there is sufficient light, I usually stop down to somewhere between f2.8 > and f5.6 with the 85mm lenses. Wide open the depth of field often is simply > too shallow. Also there is light fall-off at open aperture, and some lack of > contrast - which on the other hand is nice with kids and especially > girlsYou can get a nicely blurred backround at f4, too, if you choose a > better background than I chose for those 85mm lens comparison test at > http://www.arnoldstark.de/pentax.htm or rather > http://www.physnet.uni-hamburg.de/hp/stark/pentax85/Portrait/portrait.htm Arnold, Ah, so that was you. Actually you chose an excellent background, and I would like to thank you kindly for performing and posting those tests. Very helpful. --Mike
Re: Applause for the *ist D
> Mike what do you know that we don't ( we all know you > know ) Well, I think it's okay to say this now, that Olympus will be debuting the 4/3rds system at the PMA show, with several new purpose-built lenses, including a 600mm-equivalent fast telephoto. Since the 4/3rds sensor size is smaller than the sensor size of the *ist D, it will be interesting to see what size the lenses turn out to be. Comparing the fast tele to the equivalent 35mm lenses will, I hope, finally prove the point I've been trying to make for a year now that lenses purpose-built for a smaller sensor can be smaller, lighter, faster, and cheaper than their 35mm counterparts. Also, the EOS-10D is *already* selling at a street price of $1500, and Nikon is expected to drop the price of the D100 to $1500 to match it. That pretty much means that Pentax will have to match the $1500 price-point for the *ist D, body only. We can be assured that it won't be appreciably more expensive than that. As I think somebody already mentioned, the stock price of Pentax has taken a sharp rise in recent weeks. Pal notwithstanding, I think we are smack-dab in the middle of a full-bore Pentax renaissance. --Mike
Re: this will give you something to chew on
> I'm a newbie to the list. Why? - the ist-D of course. Greg, That's cool! Welcome. --Mike
Re: Hands up and be counted
> I didn't expect a Nikon copy. I expected something with built in lust factor. > Something that made peole say wow! with first sight. Something sexy that they > had to check out. Pål, One little thing you're overlooking--it *has* a built-in lust factor, it *is* causing people to say wow at first sight (look back at the PDML), and it *is* something sexy that they want to check out. Even with all the PMA news, and the fact that the EOS-10D is clearly stealing the show, the thread with the second-most traffic on dpreview.com is about the *ist D, and the large majority of the comments are positive. --Mike
Re: Hands up and be counted
> Ultraradical styling is really > dangerous. Inevitably, more hate it than like it. Steve, I agree. --Mike
Re: All Is Right In The Pentax World!
> Well, for one the Pentax users who doesn't mind a Pentax looking like a Nikon > would probably bite. Fine. I think you're overreacting in your contention that the *ist D "looks like a Nikon." You could just as easily say that an ZX-7 looks like an N65, or that a PZ-1p looks like an EOS-1. Many cameras look somewhat similar. I don't think the *ist D is a "copy" of the Nikon in any way. There are a few superficial resemblances. So what? What were you expecting? A camera shaped like a high-heeled shoe, or a loaf of bread? > Would Nikon owners bite? Unfortunately not, as buying a Pentax that looks like > a Nikon, even if it is smaller, makes no sense. Likewise for Canon users. > How about Minolta owners? Why would they buy a Nikon lookalike when they can > get the real thing Since when is Nikon "the real thing"? > or even a Canon with the associated boosted image, IS > lenses, USM and huge lenses line-up, not to mention upgrade paths and huge > used market? And this differs from the situation with Pentax 35mm products _how_? > Don't think so. Of course the same goes for every other brand of > cameras. Nikon and Canon are better proposition because what they offer is > more complete and what Pentax offers aren't distinguished enough to alter this > fact. > How about thgose who want a camera as jewellery? Sorry but the *ist D looks > like an entry level Nikon so its status and show off effect is zero. You don't know that. Relative size can have an immediate visual impression, and the *ist D's measurements are appreciably less than those of, say, the 10D. So far we don't know what the *ist D looks like. No one has seen it yet. No one has held it yet. _You_ haven't seen it yet. _You_ haven't held it yet. SO HOLD YER HORSES! > The Optio > S is much more of a conversation stopper. So buy yourself an Optio S, Pål. I'm interested in TAKING PICTURES, not "stopping conversations." > The fact that you may want dedicated lenses undermines the *ist D as viable > alternative also for Pentax users. Huh? It does? In what possible way? The *ist D supports K mount. Every K mount lens you want to use can be used on it. In what way would the introduction of a few lenses for the DSLR compromise your ability to use any and all of your current 35mm lenses on the *ist D? I think this last comment exposes the fact that you're not being "realistic." (Why is it that all pessimists insist that they are just being "realistic"?) You're acting like a jilted lover! --Mike
Applause for the *ist D
> After reading the ist D threads over the last couple of days it looks now > like the honeymoon is over, the bitching & moaning has begun in > earnest. PDML negative imagination is running amuck and more than a few of > us, who previously were pleading for Pentax to release the new DSLR, now > have the ist D lying dead in a pile of ashes before too long. All of this > based on a couple of photos of a prototype camera that no one has even > handled. Yes sir, all is right in the Pentax world! Perhaps, perhaps... Personally, and I say this with the weight of my reputation behind me, I think the *ist D is about the perfect product introduction at this point in time. Much remains to be seen, of course, in the way of image quality and firmware choices and camera performance; but as regards the good looks of the camera, the incredible size, and all of the apparent design choices evident from this early, partial release of the specifications, I truly believe that there is not one thing that Pentax could have done better. To me, this product looks well conceived, well judged, well designed, astutely implemented, and beautifully balanced, and so far I can't identify any significant flaws. I think the Pentax team that put this together did an outstandingly good job. --Mike Mike Johnston See "The Sunday Morning Photographer," my weekly online column about photography at any of these three locations: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sunday1.shtml http://www.steves-digicams.com/smp/smp_index.html http://www.photo.net/mjohnston/ Also, check out my regular monthly column in the U.K. _Black & White Photography_ magazine!
Re: Position: *ist-D & D10
First of all, re this thread title, it's not D10, it's 10D. "Pendant" I may be, but these errors are potentially confusing. (For instance, the D1 is a Nikon, the 1D is a Canon.) > And then there will be the interminable PDML threads a year or so > from now when we will all (some more than others) be bemoaning why > Pentax has abandoned any future DSLR plans due to lack of sales for > the *ist. I very much doubt that will happen. DSLRs are selling like hotcakes these days, and if the grumpy old PDMLers don't care, there are plenty of people out there who will. My local camera store--which happens to be the biggest Pentax dealer in Wisconsin--mainly complains about DSLRs that they just can't get enough to sell. They sold many Canon D60s but I never even got to see one, because they were in and out of the door so fast. This may surprise some of you, but many people who buy cameras could care less about lens compatibility. They buy a camera, they buy a lens for it, end of problem. The majority of people who buy SLRs these days buy a "kit" that includes a lens (sometimes two) and then never buy another lens. I really got a laugh out of the fact that Pentax SPECIFIED that the *ist D will work with screwmount lenses. To me, that's proof positive that they monitor this list. Not one in a thousand average camera customers cares about such arcana. --Mike P.S. One of my "photo friends" wrote to me when he first saw the news about the Canon 10D that it was a big disappointment and he was certainly not going to "jump." Later the same day I got a message from him saying that he had just ordered one.
Re: Hands up and be counted
> I don't think that you'd find it was the case if you check back the E forum > histories of the time. For obvious reasons I was watching these lists and it > was generally suggested that there wasn't sufficient advantage in the E-20 to > make most realistic E-10 owners too concerned. Not only that, but some E-20 upgraders reported going _back_ to their E-10s because the write times were so much faster. --Mike
Re: *istd: first visual impression
> I think it is very well specified camera in small body but its presentation > and design is very derivative. You could remove the Pentax name with Nikon or > perhaps Minolta and no one would have noticed. In this is the real point; no > one except those with K-mount lenses will notice. I had expected something > more radical in interface and look from Pentax. Something that made people > take notice. I don't really know why. Perhaps because Pentax have always been > an original company. > In isn't bad and I'm sure the price will be competitive. However, its only > function seem to be to prevent Pentax users to buy a Nikon. I had hope for > something better. > Perhaps I come through as too negative but it is mostly the look I am negative > about. Oh. Well, I like the look. I don't see what is so bad about Pentax making a camera that is as good as the D100, which is one of the best-selling, best-performing DSLRs on the world market. Seems like a pretty good mark to hit to me. --Mike
Re: FM: Fret Mode: The Sky Is Falling, Part II
> The issue isn't quality, it's lenses. All of a sudden that nice 24mm lens > is a 36mm lens, and if you want a lens that gives you the field of view > that a 24mm lens on a film body does, you're going to need to get a 16mm > rectilinear lens, which don't come cheap. That's just the point, Chris. They do come cheap if they're made to cover the smaller sensor. The point is that if you have smaller sensor and design a lens specifically to cover it, it will be smaller, lighter, and cheaper than a lens of the same focal length designed to cover 35mm. My digicam has a zoom that is, at the wide end, 7.1mm in focal length and f/1.8 in speed. That's because it has to cover a 1/1.8" sensor about the size of a thumbnail. Any idea what a 7mm f/1.8 lens designed to cover 35mm would look like, and cost? Just look at the Pen F lenses. You'll get a good idea of what lenses look like that have to cover only half of the 35mm frame. They're smaller, lighter, and cheaper. --Mike
Re: What the D*ist REALLY MEANS...
> Sorry that should be: > > Pedant. I liked "pendant" much better. --Mike
Well I'll be hanged, WAS: What the D*ist REALLY MEANS...
Har! Good one. "What damned error, but some sober brow Will bless it and approve it with a text, Hiding the grossness with fair ornament?" --W.S. --Mike > Pendant. >> Since we're the Pentax list, we should probably get this correct from the >> start. >> >> The camera is apparently called: >> >> *ist D (lower-case "i", since it's a suffix) >> >> Not >> >> D *ist (which would sound like "deist," a believer in deism, the >> rational belief in the existence of a non-interfering God not subject to >> revelation) >> >> Just thought the local editor should mention that.
Re: Hands up and be counted
> So, how many of you merry people are going to get an *ist-D and if not why > not? I would if I could afford to. Probably won't, though, the reason being cost. --Mike
Re: *istd: first visual impression
>> It wouldn't be half bad if it sold like F80s. > > > But why should it? It is not that the *Ist D is bad in any way. But it is an > also ran looking like a F80 with sensor of a one year old Nikon DSLR. The only > selling point will be price. Lets just hope that the compettition does not put > out something more competitive in the mean time. > Pentax, due to its rather pedestrian image, need something more imaginitive to > catch interest. Pål, I'm surprised you're being so critical. I think the *ist D is very attractively styled, and it's certainly eliciting a lot of excited utterances around here. And there's certainly nothing wrong with the Sony 6 mp sensor--it's a very good sensor and 6 mp is the ideal size for a "serious amateur" DSLR. There is only one camera currently on the market with a larger sensor, and it's in a whole 'nuther league as far as cost and intended market. The *ist D certainly seems to be "catching interest" as far as I can tell. As for the N80, I don't think the *ist D particularly resembles it, but there would be nothing wrong if it did. The N80 is one of Nikon's most successful bodies in years, aesthetically and functionally. I'd probably be using one myself if I didn't have to use that nasty Nikon "ni-sen" glass with it! --Mike
Fred's got something in his eye
>> Who the hell cares?!?!?! We got a DLSR to use with Pentax >> lenses!!! WAHOOO! > > This has been my number one (photo) thought for the last day or so. > > ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) Wow, thirteen winks! That's gotta be a new record! --Mike
Re: It's HERE!... NOT Bah!
> There are certainly a lot of us who'll be royally p*ist off if our huge > investment in glass (including my 15mm f/3.5) is made obsolete or > irrelevant; that is, if we have to have two different lenses to serve > the same purpose on a DSLR and a film SLR. Not everyone is going to > *abandon* film for digital. Many of us plan on using both...if it's > possible/practical. Canon has made this possible with the EOS 1Ds Well, maybe you're right, although I wonder exactly how many there are in "a lot of us" Unlike Nikon and Canon, Pentax hasn't served the pro market for many years, so I doubt there's a huge base of people with both a "huge investment" in lenses and the need to shoot digital side-by-side with film. As for the EOS-1Ds, I'd personally rather buy a $1700 DSLR and three or four new lenses for it than have to pay $8000 for the DSLR body so I can use my old 35mm lenses. Let alone the fact that for many amateurs, their biggest investment is in long telephotos that they'd be more than happy to see getting even longer. How many times have we overheard discussions on this list from people who have 300mms wishing they could afford 400mms, people who have 400mms wishing they could afford 600mms, and so on? So in half the cases or more, the smaller sensor turns into a material _advantage_ for amateur photographers vis-à-vis the pre-existing investment. Hardly supports your contentions. The worst that happens for most people is that their existing telephoto glass gets longer and then they'll have to buy a new wide-angle or two. This just doesn't seem like such a big downside to me. --Mike
Re: *istd : CCD from Sony
> They are quite reserved after the warm welcome they made to the > - later aborted - digital MZ-S. We should all take example. I'll tell ya, if the *ist D never materializes, Pentax is going to buy itself some real problems. In fact, if I were them, I'd make sure it hit the market BEFORE its announced release date, just to prevent the inevitable remembrances of the "MZ-D" were it to be a week or two late --Mike
Re: *ist D photos
> Hardly intuitive, is it. > In what parlance/language does "1" stand for "on?" Binary? On an A/C > line power switch? > And, if it was meant to be a zero, it should have had the slant bar > thru it, like '0', to avoid just this sort of ambiguity. > Hmmm. The electrical symbol for current is 'I'... > Anyhow, it is a curiosity! > > Most ordinary humans do not think in terms of binary symbols when it > comes to ordinary, everyday items like hardware power switches. My > wall switches, even the toggle or rocker ones, do not have 1 and 0, or > even I and O on them. I prefer the following symbols for "on" and "off": "On" for on "Off" for off These make sense to me and I seldom find myself confused --Mike
Re: Is perspective "cropping"? WAS: pentax-discuss-d Digest V03 #8
> The way it makes the most sense to me is to think in terms of the film > moving. You've got a cone coming out of the back. The further back the film > plane the wider the lens. > > > > > x >x x > x x > xx > x x >x x > x x > > > Your piece of film needs to fiit inside that cone. So if you only change the > film size the same lens can go from very long to wide. Nick, That's a good way to put it. --Mike
Re: *ist D competitor - Canon EOS 10D
> Canon has announced EOS 10D. I'll go look at it tomorrow. Today I'm just going to enjoy the news about the *ist D. --Mike
Re: Goody, Yummy
> Canon has a 28mm f/1.8. A nice, small Pentax version of that lens would > be perfect (42mm f/1.8) > > Michael > >> Mike Johnston wrote: >> I already have the perfect portrait lens--the "75mm effective" (a.k.a. 50mm) >> f/1.4 lens. Now just give me a good fast moderate wide-angle for the *ist D >> and I'm home free. Michael, Yup. I have hopes for something like a 25mm f/1.4 that's about as big as an SMCP-M 50/1.4. That would be perfect for me. But I'd take anything within shouting distance of that focal length and speed. --Mike
Re: *ist D photos
> Don't count on ISO 50 - if this is the same chip as the D100 slowest > ISO is 200. But I believe it does go to 1600. That's not chip-dependent, that's circuitry-dependent, I'm pretty sure. --Mike
Is perspective "cropping"? WAS: pentax-discuss-d Digest V03 #8
> Not really. The fact that the 50 has a field of view more like a 75 is > created by cropping, not optical zooming. In effect, the > less-than-24x36 image sensor size means that there's a permanently > enabled digital zoom feature on the camera. > > All you're doing is cropping. The perspective-flattening effects of > longer optics aren't going to come into play (or will they? maybe I'm > the confused one). Well, perhaps. The fact is, you could say the same thing about any smaller format. You could say that "all you're doing" with rollfilm is cropping the field of view of 4x5 film, and "all you're doing" with 35mm film is cropping the field of view of the rollfilm. A 300mm is normal on an 8x10 camera, moderately telephoto on a 4x5, long portrait length on a 6x7, and long telephoto on 35mm. As far as PERSPECTIVE is concerned, it doesn't change with focal length anyway. If you took a picture on 8x10 film with a 300mm lens, then cut out a tiny 36mm x 24mm piece from the middle of it, that little piece would have exactly the same perspective as would a piece of 35mm film aimed at the same target with a 300mm 35mm lens. No, the pictures wouldn't look exactly the same, because the smaller camera would resolve better. But in terms of "flattening" they'd be the same. So, yes, the 50mm lens on an APS sized sensor would have the same angle of view, d.o.f. at same aperture, perspective, and "flattening" effect as a piece of 35mm film cropped. But so would a 75mm lens on a full-sized piece of 35mm film. Hope this is clear. This is one of those perennial questions in photography--it just always comes up again and again and again. --Mike
I'm humoring you--I have no idea.
> Mike I have not even started, but I'll refrain since > you did ome thru. > > Now whats the word on it's image quality? I know you > know. It's absolutely stunning, capable of outstanding capture at ISO 400 even on "HQ" type .jpeg compression; eminently usable at 800; noise suppression for long exposures is outstanding; yields full-sized 11x14's fully the equal of GOOD film when RAW capture is used at ISO of 200 or less. Be sure to look at the thread title. --Mike
Re: *ist D photos
> Comrades! > > http://www.digitalcamera.jp/html/HotNews/image/2003-02/27/ist-D-1L.jpg > > http://www.digitalcamera.jp/html/HotNews/image/2003-02/27/ist-D-2L.jpg > > Wow! Wow is right--it's a lot better looking than I thought it would be. Satisfied now, Bob B.? They must have heard you talking. --Mike
Re: pentax-discuss-d Digest V03 #5
> I know. Really now, K-mount lenses and bodies are _already_ less than > 100% compatible: I've heard about old Ricoh lenses that will > permanently jam into place on a new AF body Whoa, whoa, whoa. That's NOT an incompatibility. I'm not saying your overall point is wrong, but Pentax is under NO obligation to make its new bodies conform to older products FROM OTHER MANUFACTURERS. This is an unreasonable standard to hold them to, and certainly not a valid example of incompatibility. --Mike
Re: And it's HERE!
Artur, All I knew was that today was the likely embargo date, and that the news would break today. As the the content of the news or the specifics of the camera, I hadn't seen any of the news before anyone else did. In fact, neither did Pentax reps or dealers. --Mike > You > > > Knew > > > :)) > > > Admit > > > It:)) > > > Regards > Artur > - Original Message - > From: "Mike Johnston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 4:23 PM > Subject: And it's HERE! > > >> >> >> And >> >> >> >> It's >> >> >> >> >> HERE! >> >> > http://www.letsgodigital.nl/webpages/events/PMA-2003/news/pentax/SLR-IST_uk. >> html >>
Re: *ist D!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>> * Choice of JPEG, TIFF and RAW recording formats >> * Comes complete with software compatible with RAW format data >> * Special battery grip (expected to go on sale at the same time as >> the *ist D) > One would hope so, the biggest expense with digitals is batteries. It is?? No, it isn't. You use rechargeable NiMH batteries. Granted, it does coast fifty or sixty dollars for a set (although a charger and a set of batteries might be included in the selling price of the *ist D, I don't know), but once you own them you can re-use them for hundreds and hundreds of charges with no additonal expense. Given the fast power drain of digital cameras (a single set of batteries can last less than a day), the use of rechargeables is nearly mandatory. Don't mean to be picking on you here, Kevin, it's just that I don't like to see misapprehensions promulgated gratuitously. (I know, I like that phrase too. ) --Mike
Re: *ist D!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>> * Convenient playback functions, such as nine imageand 12X >> magnification-display > gimmicks Far from it (have you used a digital camera yet?). What this refers to is that in replay mode, you can view nine frames at once on the LCD screen, which greatly speeds up editing and reviewing, and the 12X display is for magnifying the image on the LCD screen so you can check details (like blinks in a group portrait, say) and focus accuracy. These two features are indispensable on any digital camera, but _especially_ on a digital SLR meant for more serious photographers. They're certainly not gimmicks. --Mike
Re: *ist D!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> I'd kick the tyres of that 'effective' word in front > of megapixels, though. This is standard digital sensor terminology. It refers to the fact that not all of the megapixels of any sensor are used for capturing the image-forming light. It has nothing to do with Pentax in particular. All the digital camera makers use it. --Mike
It's HERE!... NOT Bah!
> Throwing away compatibility to a really huge extent, like building > small-image-circle lenses for the DSLR, would *really* go against Pentax > history. I'm feeling more confident they won't do something that dumb. Mark, I really beg to differ. This would not be dumb at all, it would be SMART. Canon and Nikon have already started doing it (Canon's digital-only lenses are expected at this PMA or in Japan). One of the MAJOR advantages of digital is that you can get high quality out of a smaller-than-35mm sensor, and this in turn paves the way for smaller, lighter, faster lenses. There's no reason to be forced to buy a telephoto that covers 35mm when you're trying to do nature and wildlife work with a DSLR like the *ist D; and there's no reason to have to bear the expense, size, and slow speed of what for 35mm is super-wide-angle, when all you need to cover is the smaller sensor of the *ist D. I will be surprised and disappointed if Pentax doesn't follow through with at least a limited series of lenses specifically for the *ist D. This is exactly what is needed in digital photography, not the continued application of vestigial technology that's clearly on the way out. --Mike
Fingernails on blackboard, part 347
> I hear ya Cotty.I have to much money Brendan and Dave are trying to get back at me for teasing everybody yesterday. It's _too_. --Mike
Re: What the D*ist REALLY MEANS...
> Re: What the D*ist REALLY MEANS... Since we're the Pentax list, we should probably get this correct from the start. The camera is apparently called: *ist D (lower-case "i", since it's a suffix) Not D *ist (which would sound like "deist," a believer in deism, the rational belief in the existence of a non-interfering God not subject to revelation) Just thought the local editor should mention that. --Mike
Re: It's HERE!... Bah!
> I suspect this means lenses with less-than-full-frame coverage, made > specifically for the DSLR. Hope this doesn't affect plans for the > full-frame digicam so many of us are holding out for. I'm sure not holding out for it. A smaller-than-35mm sensor is one of the primary advantages of the new technology. Why throw it away? --Mike
Re: And it's HERE!
> Does this mean no more flower/cat photos? *whew* --Mike
Goody, Yummy
I'm sure y'all have noticed this little codicil on dpreview.com: "In its quest for ever higher performance combined with compact dimensions, PENTAX has been developing lenses compatible with the new PENTAX digital SLR camera. PENTAX aims to launch these in fall 2003." Oh, goody, goody, yummy, yummy --Mike
The D *ist is the real Olydak--?
>Unfortunately - still no photos... One thing at a time, gang. You only have to wait a few more days for the photos. The prototype will be showed under glass at PMA, and we will get photos from the show floor to share with the PDML. I'm sure the reason there are no official photos with the press release is that the final production version of the D *ist has not been absolutely finalized yet. Quite some time ago I wrote a column about the rumored "Olydak," the collaboration between Olympus and Kodak that was supposed to be a small, light SLR with purpose-built lenses. Well, I think I got what I was wishing for, just not from Olympus...the D *ist is certainly looking to me like what the DSLR universe needs! I just hope they can bring that projected price of $2,500 down somewhat.* --Mike * Gotcha. Did I getcha?
Re: It's HERE!
More on the DSLR-- I haven't gotten a Digest this morning so I'm assuming I'm incommunicado from the PDML again, really piss-poor timing for THAT. http://www.steves-digicams.com/pr/pentax_02262003_istD_pr.html
And it's HERE!
And It's HERE! http://www.letsgodigital.nl/webpages/events/PMA-2003/news/pentax/SLR-IST_uk. html
Re: Tradeoffs: old vs. new, FA77/1.8 vs. K85/1.8
> The 77mm ltd that escaped us all got me to thinking. If I had seen it, would > I have bought it? In order to do so, I would have at least considered > selling my K85/1.8. I have a couple of other options as well, but this is > the first that came to mind. Classic old lens vs. "classic" new lens. What > would you do? would you sell the one to get the other? I don't own either of them, but what I'd think would be the most sensible thing to do would be to: --Buy the 77mm if you're in the market for a short tele today and don't already own one. It's got so many virtues--superb build, great optical performance, fast aperture but small size and low weight. Just nothin' not to like. --Keep the K 85/1.8 or the FA or A 85/1.4 if you already have it. All things considered, my guess (from looking at pictures) is that the A 85/1.4 is the best short tele Pentax ever made, albeit by a very narrow margin. --Mike
Re: Nanometer
> Why is the word abbreviation so long? Awwright! Another Stephen Wright joke. --Mike
Re: It's Coming
Hey guys? It's still coming. Be of good cheer, tomorrow's another day. --Mike
Re: Pentax DSLR
Illinois Bill wrote: > Assuming a lens factor of 1.5, the ideal lens to replace the 50mm lens, > should be right smack dab in between 25 and 50 mm. That means that 25 + > 17.5 is 42.5, which means that those of use with the pancake or 43mm > limited are right on target . . . . uh oh, does anyone notice a reason > for the limited lineup now? Hey, we're better at math in Wisconsin than they are in Illinois! Even I can figure out that 43mm x 1.5 is 64.5mm--not very close to a 50mm. Proud of my ciphering ability, --Wisconsin Mike
Re: It's Coming
> OK, I'm in...tell us Mike or I'll post the other 498 images I have just > like this one... > > http://www.heritageservices.com.au/images/too%20cute.jpg Oh, but I *LIKE* doggies! Ruff, ruff, little feller! Daz a goo doggy. Ruff! Can you say, "ruff"? Azza god boy! --Mike
