Re: *istD/DS Size relative to a MX?
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 20:12:57 +, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm sorry buddy, but that pancake lens on that *ist D looks awful. Yes, but the 43 Limited looks amazing on a silver MX (saw Mark's on my MX when he visited Toronto some time back). And, I bet an M 2.8 40 Pancake would look nice on a *istD... cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: *istD/DS Size relative to a MX?
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005, frank theriault wrote: On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 20:12:57 +, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm sorry buddy, but that pancake lens on that *ist D looks awful. Yes, but the 43 Limited looks amazing on a silver MX (saw Mark's on my MX when he visited Toronto some time back). And, I bet an M 2.8 40 Pancake would look nice on a *istD... I bet the pictures with the 43 look much better than those taken with the 40 (except if the 43 does not like the digital sensor). And that's what counts in my book. Kostas (still, I would look for a black one myself, given the money it costs)
Re: *istD/DS Size relative to a MX?
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 16:45:00 + (GMT), Kostas Kavoussanakis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I bet the pictures with the 43 look much better than those taken with the 40 (except if the 43 does not like the digital sensor). And that's what counts in my book. Kostas (still, I would look for a black one myself, given the money it costs) Agreed. Cotty brought up the issue of how it looked on the camera. Blame it on him. vbg cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: *istD/DS Size relative to a MX?
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005, frank theriault wrote: Blame it on him. Absolutely. I do that all the time anyway. Kostas
Re: *istD/DS Size relative to a MX?
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 17:34:22 + (GMT), Kostas Kavoussanakis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Absolutely. I do that all the time anyway. And, that's as it should be... LOL cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: *istD/DS Size relative to a MX?
Actually it looks a bit silly. frank theriault wrote: On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 20:12:57 +, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm sorry buddy, but that pancake lens on that *ist D looks awful. Yes, but the 43 Limited looks amazing on a silver MX (saw Mark's on my MX when he visited Toronto some time back). And, I bet an M 2.8 40 Pancake would look nice on a *istD... cheers, frank -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke
Re: *istD/DS Size relative to a MX?
On 14/1/05, frank theriault, discombobulated, unleashed: Agreed. Cotty brought up the issue of how it looked on the camera. Blame it on him. Hey, aesthetics are pertinent to me. A bit like cars, I feel better when I'm driving something I love. Surely you must get a buzz out of being on a bike you adore? Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: *istD/DS Size relative to a MX?
On 14/1/05, frank theriault, discombobulated, unleashed: On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 20:12:57 +, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm sorry buddy, but that pancake lens on that *ist D looks awful. Yes, but the 43 Limited looks amazing on a silver MX (saw Mark's on my MX when he visited Toronto some time back). And, I bet an M 2.8 40 Pancake would look nice on a *istD... My apologies Frank - I should have said: 'that 43mm Ltd (in silver) on that *ist D looks awful! ;-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: *istD/DS Size relative to a MX?
On 14/1/05, Peter J. Alling, discombobulated, unleashed: Actually it looks a bit silly. thud Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: *istD/DS Size relative to a MX?
- Original Message - From: Kostas Kavoussanakis Subject: Re: *istD/DS Size relative to a MX? I bet the pictures with the 43 look much better than those taken with the 40 (except if the 43 does not like the digital sensor). I feel so sorry for that lens. Its like it is the Rodney Dangerfield of lenses.. In fact, I'll dig mine out, put it onto the istD and we will see how it does. I have no 43 to compare it to, though. William Robb
*istD/DS Size relative to a MX?
I just got another MX (BLACK!) this week after not having one for a few years and I forgot how damn small this MX camera is. I am wondering how does the *istD/DS bodies compare in size to the MX full frame 35mm film camera? jco
Re: *istD/DS Size relative to a MX?
Where did you get yours? Sincerely, C. Brendemuehl Caveat: This information should be viewed critically. It may merit as much technical excellence as a CBS news report. -- Original Message -- From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 10:34:32 -0500 I just got another MX (BLACK!) this week after not having one for a few years and I forgot how damn small this MX camera is. I am wondering how does the *istD/DS bodies compare in size to the MX full frame 35mm film camera? jco Sent via the WebMail system at mail.safe-t.net
Re: *istD/DS Size relative to a MX?
The DS is a little narrower a little thicker and a little taller than an MX without the winder, the reverse is more or less true, (if you consider the grip), for thickness and height if the MX has a winder mounted. J. C. O'Connell wrote: I just got another MX (BLACK!) this week after not having one for a few years and I forgot how damn small this MX camera is. I am wondering how does the *istD/DS bodies compare in size to the MX full frame 35mm film camera? jco -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke
Re: *istD/DS Size relative to a MX?
On 13/1/05, Peter J. Alling, discombobulated, unleashed: The DS is a little narrower a little thicker and a little taller than an MX without the winder, the reverse is more or less true, (if you consider the grip), for thickness and height if the MX has a winder mounted. Anyone with both cameras? It would be great to see a few side-by-side pics please. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: *istD/DS Size relative to a MX?
Just because Cotty asked... Quick and dirty http://www.mindspring.com/~pjalling/mx-m50_ist-D-fa43.html Cotty wrote: On 13/1/05, Peter J. Alling, discombobulated, unleashed: The DS is a little narrower a little thicker and a little taller than an MX without the winder, the reverse is more or less true, (if you consider the grip), for thickness and height if the MX has a winder mounted. Anyone with both cameras? It would be great to see a few side-by-side pics please. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke
Re: *istD/DS Size relative to a MX?
On 13/1/05, Peter J. Alling, discombobulated, unleashed: Just because Cotty asked... Quick and dirty http://www.mindspring.com/~pjalling/mx-m50_ist-D-fa43.html Thanks Pete - I would be even more interested in seeing the *ist Ds next to the MX. I'm sorry buddy, but that pancake lens on that *ist D looks awful. ;-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: *istD/DS Size relative to a MX?
The difference in size between the *ist-D and the *ist-Ds is minimal. I've compared them and it can be measured in a few millimeters. The difference in size is primarily bragging rights. I don't know, I could have put the M 40mm f2.8 on one of them but the 50 1.7 us closer in size to the 43ltd. I kind of liked the negative version the MX was of the *ist-D or vice versa. (It's not so important how it looks but how good the pictures are however). Cotty wrote: On 13/1/05, Peter J. Alling, discombobulated, unleashed: Just because Cotty asked... Quick and dirty http://www.mindspring.com/~pjalling/mx-m50_ist-D-fa43.html Thanks Pete - I would be even more interested in seeing the *ist Ds next to the MX. I'm sorry buddy, but that pancake lens on that *ist D looks awful. ;-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke
Re: *istD/DS Size relative to a MX?
Hah! You know, I decided to look at my MX's, and my MG's ~ and the MG is smaller than the MX! Less wide... My best MG is currently sporting my recently acquired Vivitar Series 1 135mm f/2.3. Golly NED! That is one big lens! g keith Peter J. Alling wrote: Just because Cotty asked... Quick and dirty http://www.mindspring.com/~pjalling/mx-m50_ist-D-fa43.html Cotty wrote: On 13/1/05, Peter J. Alling, discombobulated, unleashed: The DS is a little narrower a little thicker and a little taller than an MX without the winder, the reverse is more or less true, (if you consider the grip), for thickness and height if the MX has a winder mounted. Anyone with both cameras? It would be great to see a few side-by-side pics please. Cheers, Cotty
