Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
M mount in its current incarnation is also the most advanced successful RF mount. While it hasn't evolved much since 1953 (Only the addition of 6 digit lens coding with the M8 introduction) it is arguably the current state of the art. Attempts to launch newer, more advanced RF mounts have effectively failed (Contax G anyone?) -Adam On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 5:01 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > More to the point: The Leica M-bayonet lens mount has been in current > production on lenses since 1953 by its original vendor. The Practika-Pentax > screw mount for auto-iris lenses has been obsoleted, effectively, for over > thirty years even though a couple of third-party vendors still make lenses > in this mount. > > As I said in a previous email: Ain't gonna happen. > > G > > On Nov 20, 2008, at 1:34 PM, John Celio wrote: > >> Leica is an exception, but for good reason: their M system is used >> primarily by professionals and wealthy amateurs who are more concerned >> with status symbols than convenience. Also, if I recall correctly, >> Leica has been on the brink of bankruptcy for ages. They're not exactly >> a good example of old tech turning a big profit. > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > follow the directions. > -- M. Adam Maas http://www.mawz.ca Explorations of the City Around Us. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
Contax G-System mount never made it to third party lens vendors at all. That whole camera line was only in production for a few years. There are more current lenses in Contax rangefinder mount than in Contax G-System mount ... ! G On Nov 20, 2008, at 2:11 PM, Adam Maas wrote: M mount in its current incarnation is also the most advanced successful RF mount. While it hasn't evolved much since 1953 (Only the addition of 6 digit lens coding with the M8 introduction) it is arguably the current state of the art. Attempts to launch newer, more advanced RF mounts have effectively failed (Contax G anyone?) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
you dont understand, the lenses create the market/need for the body, you dont have to convince the person who would buy this camera to buy it, they already would want it. At least anyone with extensive experience with M42 lenses would. Regarding the mechanism, its very simple, no more complex than the mechanism already in the K mount DSLRs or Nikon' DSLRs. Its not some advanced form of automation like todays lenses and bodies are doing, its a simple plate that pushes a pin when the shutter fires. Many many cheap cameras had this plate so its not as expensive to implement as you make it sound. Its not that I am unhappy with DSLRs on the market, Its that I am unhappy I cant get a M42 body in addition to the bodies I already have. JC O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Celio Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 3:46 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)? John, you are never going to be happy with digital photography. I think you need to come to grips with that. There will never be an M42 dSLR for one simple reason: it would not be profitable. Camera companies make the majority of their profits on lenses and accessories, and with "millions" of M42 lenses available used and in good condition (as you claim), any new lenses would be passed over for the much cheaper used stuff. A new M42 camera system would thus not generate enough new lens & accessory sales to turn a profit, and the company making it would fail. Besides, for the last decade the market has been shifting to more electronic control and less mechanical stuff, such as the parts needed to perform the auto features you so desperately want. One would be hard pressed to convince current and future camera buyers that a camera based on technolgy from 50 years ago is in any way superior to modern designs. I'm sorry, but your opinions and desires are not shared by enough people to turn your dream camera(s) into reality. John Celio -- http://www.neovenator.com http://www.cafepress.com/neovenatorphoto -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
Huh? The whole point of a M42 DSLR is to get the convenience of the M42 automatic aperture function which WAS invented over 50 years ago. There is no M42 DSLR or DSLR adapter on the market that enables the M42 lenses to operate fully (yet). That's my point. This M42 DSLR would fill a demand that already exists, not create a new one or expect buyers starting from scratch to use M42 bodies and lenses althought there could be a good argument to do that too. Its nothing more than a better M42 camera to use the massive quantity of M42 lenses ALREADY in circulation. Necessity is the mother of invention... JC O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Celio Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 4:35 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)? Leica is an exception, but for good reason: their M system is used primarily by professionals and wealthy amateurs who are more concerned with status symbols than convenience. Also, if I recall correctly, Leica has been on the brink of bankruptcy for ages. They're not exactly a good example of old tech turning a big profit. John -- http://www.neovenator.com http://www.cafepress.com/neovenatorphoto Original Message Subject: RE: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)? From: "Bob W" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thu, November 20, 2008 2:15 pm To: "'Pentax-Discuss Mail List'" [..] > One > would be hard > pressed to convince current and future camera buyers that a > camera based > on technolgy from 50 years ago is in any way superior to > modern designs. > Ahem... http://uk.leica-camera.com/photography/m_system/m8/ However, I do agree that nobody is going to build a DSLR for the screwmount lenses. Bob -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
Theres more M42 lenses in circulation than Leica will ever make. JC O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Godfrey DiGiorgi Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 5:01 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)? More to the point: The Leica M-bayonet lens mount has been in current production on lenses since 1953 by its original vendor. The Practika- Pentax screw mount for auto-iris lenses has been obsoleted, effectively, for over thirty years even though a couple of third-party vendors still make lenses in this mount. As I said in a previous email: Ain't gonna happen. G On Nov 20, 2008, at 1:34 PM, John Celio wrote: > Leica is an exception, but for good reason: their M system is used > primarily by professionals and wealthy amateurs who are more concerned > with status symbols than convenience. Also, if I recall correctly, > Leica has been on the brink of bankruptcy for ages. They're not > exactly > a good example of old tech turning a big profit. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
Well if it such a potential gold mine, raise some capital, build a prototype & shop it around to various manufacturers (or better yet set up your own manufacturing facility) Sit back & watch the money flow like treacle. Cheers, Dave (Sorry Bob) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of JC OConnell Sent: Friday, 21 November 2008 9:08 AM To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' Subject: RE: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)? Huh? The whole point of a M42 DSLR is to get the convenience of the M42 automatic aperture function which WAS invented over 50 years ago. There is no M42 DSLR or DSLR adapter on the market that enables the M42 lenses to operate fully (yet). That's my point. This M42 DSLR would fill a demand that already exists, not create a new one or expect buyers starting from scratch to use M42 bodies and lenses althought there could be a good argument to do that too. Its nothing more than a better M42 camera to use the massive quantity of M42 lenses ALREADY in circulation. Necessity is the mother of invention... JC O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Celio Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 4:35 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)? Leica is an exception, but for good reason: their M system is used primarily by professionals and wealthy amateurs who are more concerned with status symbols than convenience. Also, if I recall correctly, Leica has been on the brink of bankruptcy for ages. They're not exactly a good example of old tech turning a big profit. John -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
> This M42 DSLR would fill a demand that already exists What makes you think this demand exists? Just because Pentax sold an awful lot of M42 lenses over the years doesn't mean that there are thousands or millions of people, or however many are needed to constitute a viable market, yearning for a DSLR to stick them on. Where are the internet discussion groups full of people with M42 lenses demanding that someone make a DSLR for them? How many people around the world are beating on the camera makers' factory doors clamouring for M42 DSLRs? Why not do a Google search and find out how many different people over the last 5 years have expressed a wish for an M42 DSLR - that at least would give us a ballpark figure for the size of the market. > Necessity is the mother of invention... I think you'd better get inventing then, because you seem to be the only person on Earth who feels this need. It's wishful thinking, John. I spent a couple of years hoping someone would bring out a DSLR for my Contax lenses. But that's not going to happen either, so I dumped them and freed my mind. Bob > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of JC OConnell > Sent: 21 November 2008 00:08 > To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' > Subject: RE: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)? > > Huh? The whole point of a M42 DSLR is to get the convenience > of the M42 automatic aperture function which WAS invented over > 50 years ago. There is no M42 DSLR or DSLR adapter on the market > that enables the M42 lenses to operate fully (yet). That's my point. > This M42 DSLR would fill a demand that already exists, not > create a new one or expect buyers starting from scratch to > use M42 bodies and lenses althought there could be a good > argument to do that too. Its nothing more than a better M42 camera to > use the > massive quantity of M42 lenses ALREADY in circulation. > Necessity is the mother of invention... > > JC O'Connell > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of > John Celio > Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 4:35 PM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: RE: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)? > > > Leica is an exception, but for good reason: their M system is used > primarily by professionals and wealthy amateurs who are more concerned > with status symbols than convenience. Also, if I recall correctly, > Leica has been on the brink of bankruptcy for ages. They're > not exactly > a good example of old tech turning a big profit. > > John > > -- > http://www.neovenator.com http://www.cafepress.com/neovenatorphoto > > Original Message > Subject: RE: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)? > From: "Bob W" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Thu, November 20, 2008 2:15 pm > To: "'Pentax-Discuss Mail List'" > > [..] > > One > > would be hard > > pressed to convince current and future camera buyers that a > > camera based > > on technolgy from 50 years ago is in any way superior to > > modern designs. > > > > Ahem... > http://uk.leica-camera.com/photography/m_system/m8/ > > However, I do agree that nobody is going to build a DSLR for the > screwmount > lenses. > > Bob > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > follow the directions. > > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > follow the directions. > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly > above and follow the directions. > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
Something tells me that you should have started complaining about the lack of this feature when the K-series cameras came out, and would not operate M-42 lenses with their auto-aperture. IF you'd been able to convince Pentax or some other maker to retain this anachronistic feature in their 70s cameras, it might still be around. But at this juncture, you are lost, a fart in the winds of change. Might I suggest you take a night course that would allow you to design a digital back for your Spotmatic. Probably pretty easy to do if the electronics were housed in a gutted motor drive unit and attached to the bottom of the camera. Replace the pressure plate with a sensor and shaker from a K10D. Glue a 2.5" LCD to the back of the camera. Battery pack in your pocket. Hey, you might not need those mercury cells anymore! Joseph McAllister [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Nov 20, 2008, at 16:07 , JC OConnell wrote: Huh? The whole point of a M42 DSLR is to get the convenience of the M42 automatic aperture function which WAS invented over 50 years ago. There is no M42 DSLR or DSLR adapter on the market that enables the M42 lenses to operate fully (yet). That's my point. This M42 DSLR would fill a demand that already exists, not create a new one or expect buyers starting from scratch to use M42 bodies and lenses althought there could be a good argument to do that too. Its nothing more than a better M42 camera to use the massive quantity of M42 lenses ALREADY in circulation. Necessity is the mother of invention... -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
NO, YOU ARE JUST CLUELESS TO THE QUALITY AND QUANTITY OF SUPERB M42 LENSES MADE BY PENTAX AND OTHERS. But if the auto aperture feature is not supported on any DSLRS it cripples them FUBAR from a user standpoint. If supported these lense are pleasure and easy to use and offer incredible image quality and value, but you wouldnt know that. See clueless above. JC O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joseph McAllister Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 10:26 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)? Something tells me that you should have started complaining about the lack of this feature when the K-series cameras came out, and would not operate M-42 lenses with their auto-aperture. IF you'd been able to convince Pentax or some other maker to retain this anachronistic feature in their 70s cameras, it might still be around. But at this juncture, you are lost, a fart in the winds of change. Might I suggest you take a night course that would allow you to design a digital back for your Spotmatic. Probably pretty easy to do if the electronics were housed in a gutted motor drive unit and attached to the bottom of the camera. Replace the pressure plate with a sensor and shaker from a K10D. Glue a 2.5" LCD to the back of the camera. Battery pack in your pocket. Hey, you might not need those mercury cells anymore! Joseph McAllister [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Nov 20, 2008, at 16:07 , JC OConnell wrote: > Huh? The whole point of a M42 DSLR is to get the convenience of the > M42 automatic aperture function which WAS invented over 50 years ago. > There is no M42 DSLR or DSLR adapter on the market that enables the > M42 lenses to operate fully (yet). That's my point. This M42 DSLR > would fill a demand that already exists, not create a new one or > expect buyers starting from scratch to use M42 bodies and lenses > althought there could be a good argument to do that too. Its nothing > more than a better M42 camera to use the > massive quantity of M42 lenses ALREADY in circulation. > Necessity is the mother of invention... -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
Given the number of cameras are still around that take 620, 122, 616, and other long gone film sizes didn't keep Kodak et al from killing the manufacture of them. By the way, John. I do have here in front of me a roll of PX-122 (Plus- X), 1966; 1 cartridge of VP-126-12 Verichrome Pan (B&W) 1969; 1 cartridge of C-126-20 Kodacolor ][ 1977; 1 roll of CX-620 Kodacolor-X 1970; 1 roll of VP-620 Verichrome Pan 1970; 1 roll of VP-127 Verichrome Pan 1964; 3 roll pack of Metro 127 Panchromatic Fine Grain Film ASA 80 (re-spooled from Kodak bulk film, it says); 3 rolls of Plus-X Pan film for Minolta-16 cameras; 2 rolls PX-Pan for Minox); 1 roll unidentified (but looks Kodak Yellow foil wrapped spool slightly smaller than 127 film; 2 spools of Single-8 Fujichrome R25 in prepaid boxes 1967; 2 rolls of KM-429 double 8mm rolls of Kodachrome 25 1975; 1 25 ft. magazine of Cine-Kodak Kodachrome Eight ( ASA 25) July, 1945; 2 Super-8 Kodachrome 40 Type A cartridges; 1 Super-8 Kodachrome ][ Type A cartridge; 1 Super-8 Ektachrome 160 Type G cartridge; and finally, about a dozen cartridges of 110 Kodacolor ] [ film for my Pentax Auto 110 in the freezer, if you are interested in starting a new thread here... (Note the mention of the Pentax Auto 110, please) Joseph McAllister Lots of gear, not much time On Nov 20, 2008, at 16:33 , Bob W wrote: This M42 DSLR would fill a demand that already exists What makes you think this demand exists? Just because Pentax sold an awful lot of M42 lenses over the years doesn't mean that there are thousands or millions of people, or however many are needed to constitute a viable market, yearning for a DSLR to stick them on. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
John, I was in the Navy back in the 60s. When a new version of a lens or camera came out and was listed in the catalog of new gear, we bought it. It was my job, when the new stuff arrived, to sit on the loading dock at the rear of the photolab and use a hammer and a straight slot screwdriver to drive a hole through the cameras, and through the glass in the lenses. Watch many a Nikon and lenses die in my hands. It was a good thing. The same should be done with the old M42 glass if the owner can't sell it for the price they want, does not have a public collection of Pentax memorabilia, or no longer has a camera to use them with. Maybe it will make the remaining lenses in the world sooo valuable that someone will build you a digital camera to use them as you wish them used, in exchange for a couple of spare lenses. Joseph McAllister Pentaxian On Nov 20, 2008, at 19:49 , JC OConnell wrote: NO, YOU ARE JUST CLUELESS TO THE QUALITY AND QUANTITY OF SUPERB M42 LENSES MADE BY PENTAX AND OTHERS. But if the auto aperture feature is not supported on any DSLRS it cripples them FUBAR from a user standpoint. If supported these lense are pleasure and easy to use and offer incredible image quality and value, but you wouldnt know that. See clueless above. JC O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
[ film for my Pentax Auto 110 in the freezer, if you are interested in starting a new thread here... (Note the mention of the Pentax Auto 110, please) Oh I noted it alright. I wrote here recently about my secret desire for an Auto110 dSLR, but we all know that will never happen. Sort of like an M42 dSLR, except an Auto110 dSLR might actually sell slightly better, due entirely to its small size. John (hey, how about a digital HIT camera?) -- http://www.neovenator.com http://www.cafepress.com/neovenatorphoto -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
More demand for Auto110 lens usage than M42? Shirley,You cant be serious. JC O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Celio Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 1:59 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)? > [ film for my Pentax Auto 110 in the freezer, if you are interested in > starting a new thread here... > > (Note the mention of the Pentax Auto 110, please) Oh I noted it alright. I wrote here recently about my secret desire for an Auto110 dSLR, but we all know that will never happen. Sort of like an M42 dSLR, except an Auto110 dSLR might actually sell slightly better, due entirely to its small size. John (hey, how about a digital HIT camera?) -- http://www.neovenator.com http://www.cafepress.com/neovenatorphoto -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
JC OConnell wrote: Huh? The whole point of a M42 DSLR is to get the convenience of the M42 automatic aperture function which WAS invented over 50 years ago. There is no M42 DSLR or DSLR adapter on the market that enables the M42 lenses to operate fully (yet). That's my point. This M42 DSLR would fill a demand that already exists, not create a new one or expect buyers starting from scratch to use M42 bodies and lenses althought there could be a good argument to do that too. Its nothing more than a better M42 camera to use the massive quantity of M42 lenses ALREADY in circulation. Necessity is the mother of invention... JC O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] My thought is that a manufacturer builds a body so that he can sell his rather expensive lenses for it, not the other way around. Sort of like a manufacturer practically gives away a printer, because you sell tons of paper and ink cartridges ~ that's where the profit, your R.O.I. is. Isn't it that way with a body? Isn't the much profit in the interchangeable lenses? That's why the question mark. I suspect it to be true, but don't know. Leica comment below John's message. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Celio Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 4:35 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)? Leica is an exception, but for good reason: their M system is used primarily by professionals and wealthy amateurs who are more concerned with status symbols than convenience. Also, if I recall correctly, Leica has been on the brink of bankruptcy for ages. They're not exactly a good example of old tech turning a big profit. John I've an opinion on this too. (Full of 'em tonight! :-D Does anyone believe Leica's bodies and lenses justify their obscene prices, from a manufacturing and assembly cost standpoint? Is there THAT much labor in either one? Are they essentially hand made, like some outrageously expensive cars are? Some of the well-known marques are essentially hand made and hand fit, with incredible number of man-hours in them. Is it like that way with Leica? At least their renown M series rangefinders and lenses? It seems to me they're on the perpetual brink of bankruptcy because they're too bloody expensive except for those professionals (well off or otherwise) who simply must have a Leica, not because they're honestly that good... Capable and durable? So it seems, but worth the tab? That's the question. It seems you're primarily paying for the name, as with many products, but the purchase price of a Leica seems untoward, for what you're getting... Just my opinion...not necessarily the truth. keith whaley -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
What your saying is true in some cases, but Pentax and Nikon would not have made their first AF cameras or first DSLR cameras compatible with their old lenses if that was the scheme on those cameras. NO, they made their AF cameras and their DSLR cameras so that existing lenses could be used on them. An M42 body would not be priced or put on market today or in the future to sell new M42 lenses, it would be put on the market to allow use the millions of existing lenses already out there in need of a DSLR body that supports them fully. It would have to make money on its own, not be a free razor to sell blades. JC O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of keith_w Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 4:33 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)? JC OConnell wrote: > Huh? The whole point of a M42 DSLR is to get the convenience of the > M42 automatic aperture function which WAS invented over 50 years ago. > There is no M42 DSLR or DSLR adapter on the market that enables the > M42 lenses to operate fully (yet). That's my point. This M42 DSLR > would fill a demand that already exists, not create a new one or > expect buyers starting from scratch to use M42 bodies and lenses > althought there could be a good argument to do that too. Its nothing > more than a better M42 camera to use the massive quantity of M42 > lenses ALREADY in circulation. Necessity is the mother of invention... > > JC O'Connell > [EMAIL PROTECTED] My thought is that a manufacturer builds a body so that he can sell his rather expensive lenses for it, not the other way around. Sort of like a manufacturer practically gives away a printer, because you sell tons of paper and ink cartridges ~ that's where the profit, your R.O.I. is. Isn't it that way with a body? Isn't the much profit in the interchangeable lenses? That's why the question mark. I suspect it to be true, but don't know. Leica comment below John's message. > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of John Celio > Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 4:35 PM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: RE: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)? > > > Leica is an exception, but for good reason: their M system is used > primarily by professionals and wealthy amateurs who are more concerned > with status symbols than convenience. Also, if I recall correctly, > Leica has been on the brink of bankruptcy for ages. They're not > exactly a good example of old tech turning a big profit. > > John I've an opinion on this too. (Full of 'em tonight! :-D Does anyone believe Leica's bodies and lenses justify their obscene prices, from a manufacturing and assembly cost standpoint? Is there THAT much labor in either one? Are they essentially hand made, like some outrageously expensive cars are? Some of the well-known marques are essentially hand made and hand fit, with incredible number of man-hours in them. Is it like that way with Leica? At least their renown M series rangefinders and lenses? It seems to me they're on the perpetual brink of bankruptcy because they're too bloody expensive except for those professionals (well off or otherwise) who simply must have a Leica, not because they're honestly that good... Capable and durable? So it seems, but worth the tab? That's the question. It seems you're primarily paying for the name, as with many products, but the purchase price of a Leica seems untoward, for what you're getting... Just my opinion...not necessarily the truth. keith whaley -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
Joseph McAllister wrote: John, I was in the Navy back in the 60s. When a new version of a lens or camera came out and was listed in the catalog of new gear, we bought it. It was my job, when the new stuff arrived, to sit on the loading dock at the rear of the photolab and use a hammer and a straight slot screwdriver to drive a hole through the cameras, and through the glass in the lenses. Watch many a Nikon and lenses die in my hands. It was a good thing. The same should be done with the old M42 glass if the owner can't sell it for the price they want, does not have a public collection of Pentax memorabilia, or no longer has a camera to use them with. Maybe it will make the remaining lenses in the world sooo valuable that someone will build you a digital camera to use them as you wish them used, in exchange for a couple of spare lenses. Joseph McAllister The bottom of the Pacific Ocean is littered with electronic gear the U.S. Navy no longer wanted, simply because they had some insane idea it should never get into the hands of civilians. I had a relative, an officer in the Navy, who spent time in the clink, because when he was assigned to dump so many perfectly good and essentially new top quality vacuum tubes into the ocean, he saved one from oblivion, to use in his ham gear. To be used in worldwide communication, for the uses most avid hams do, is a good thing, and no commercial benefit derives from it. But, the Navy said Destroy It, and he didn't. So he paid for it... Yeah, I know what Joseph means... The U.S. Navy was/is an ass when it comes to logical decisions of that ilk... keith whaley -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
On Nov 21, 2008, at 1:32 AM, keith_w wrote: Does anyone believe Leica's bodies and lenses justify their obscene prices, from a manufacturing and assembly cost standpoint? With no insight into "manufacturing and assembly cost standpoint", having used Leica lenses for thirty plus years ... they're the best lenses in the world and worth the money. They are the standard that my eye seeks for and finds wanting in most all others. I would say it took me 25 years to see well enough that I am comfortable saying this. That's where I'll be again sometime soon. I am sure of it. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
I want a job like that. Cheers, Destructo Dave 2008/11/21 Joseph McAllister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > It was my job, when the new stuff arrived, to sit on the loading dock at the > rear of the photolab and use a hammer and a straight slot screwdriver to > drive a hole through the cameras, and through the glass in the lenses. Watch > many a Nikon and lenses die in my hands. It was a good thing. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 7:00 PM, JC OConnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > you dont understand, the lenses create the market/need for the body, > you dont have to convince the person who would buy this camera to > buy it, they already would want it. At least anyone with extensive > experience with M42 lenses would. You really think there's a market for an M42 DSLR? Put your money and effort where your mouth is. Build it yourself. I'm sure you could find an old Spotmatic body, and a damaged/broken DSLR whose guts could be used. Why waste your efforts with trying to convince us, when you could be using them to make your dream camera? -Mat -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
> > I've an opinion on this too. (Full of 'em tonight! :-D > > Does anyone believe Leica's bodies and lenses justify their > obscene prices, from > a manufacturing and assembly cost standpoint? Is there THAT > much labor in either > one? > You're paying 80% of the money for the 20% quality increase you get over the competition. Once a certain level of quality is reached, the cost of making it even better rises out of proportion to the cost of the baseline, so to speak. Professionals who buy them must think the price is justified. Magnum photographers, for example, are not fools. It's unlikely that the prestige of them cuts a lot of ice. Amateurs don't have to justify them. Professionals and amateurs alike are also entitled to enjoy the history & romance attached to owning a Leica, and the pleasure of using (or even just admiring) a beautiful object. I think it was Ruskin, or perhaps William Morris, who said 'You should have nothing in your house that is not useful or beautiful'. Leicas are both useful and beautiful. Part of their beauty is their prestige, I suppose. My watch is a very nice Tag Heuer, and I know other people who have Rolexes, Breitlingers and Omegas. These watches are all beautifully made. None of them tells the time any better than the £25- plastic Timex I also own. Few people can justify owning these watches on utilitarian grounds - even scuba divers can get perfectly good diving watches for a lower price - but they're beautiful, well-made objects which work extremely well. The appeal of Leicas is the same sort of thing. > Are they essentially hand made, like some outrageously > expensive cars are? Some > of the well-known marques are essentially hand made and hand > fit, with > incredible number of man-hours in them. Is it like that way > with Leica? At least > their renown M series rangefinders and lenses? > I think (but don't know) that they are hand assembled and finished. In the days of the M3 and M2 I believe they were hand made even unto the parts, but in an effort to reduce costs they started making parts to a degree of tolerance, from cheaper materials (presumably obtainable in this solar system), beginning with the M4-2. I have an M3 and an M4-2, and the M3 does feel better quality. That's not to say that the M4-2 is not also very high quality. Both of these cameras are likely to outlive me. The M3 is 50 years old in August next year and still works beautifully. My lenses are from 1970 (50/2 Summicron) to 1994 (35/1.4 Summilux), and they all work perfectly well on my 2007 M8 digital body as well as on the film bodies. The optical quality of the lenses is outstanding. If you assume the M3's cost when new was roughly equivalent to the cost new of an M8.2 today - £3,990 - then it has cost about £80 per year, £1.60 per week or 23p per day. That's not much for such a nice object. It's a lot less than I pay for my lunch, which lasts about 5 hours. Bob > It seems to me they're on the perpetual brink of bankruptcy > because they're too > bloody expensive except for those professionals (well off or > otherwise) who > simply must have a Leica, not because they're honestly that good... > Capable and durable? So it seems, but worth the tab? That's > the question. > It seems you're primarily paying for the name, as with many > products, but the > purchase price of a Leica seems untoward, for what you're getting... > > Just my opinion...not necessarily the truth. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
> More demand for Auto110 lens usage than M42?
> Shirley,You cant be serious.
I am serious, and don't call me Shirley.
It actually has nothing to do with the lenses and everything to do with
size.
These days, consumers want small, smaller and smallest. Back in 2002,
when I started selling cameras, people were amazed at how small the
little digital P&S cams were, but still wanted something smaller ("I
want pocket-size" was something we heard a lot). When the Pentax Optio
S came out, we sold boatloads of them because it really was pocket
sized, and nothing else came close.
dSLRs follow the same trend, as can be seen in the Km/K2000, the latest
Rebels and the smaller Olympus bodies. Then you have Micro 4/3rds,
which is even smaller yet (though whether you can call them SLR cameras
is debatable, IMO).
I would bet real money that if you had an M42 dSLR and an Auto110 dSLR
and presented them to consumers, the latter would sell like hotcakes
while the former would sell maybe a crate and then rot in a warehouse
somewhere. Consumers (that is, the people who actually provide the
profits that keep companies afloat, as opposed to enthusiasts like
yourself who mostly spend money on used equipment) will not buy a large
camera that lacks modern conveniences. I will admit that the Auto110
also lacks features, but it would be much easier to add autofocus, for
instance, to a bayonet-based lens system compared to a threaded system.
My point is, using the Auto110 as a basis for a new dSLR would make an
awful lot more sense than M42 for reasons of size, convenience, size,
cost and size. Did I mention size?
Neither camera will likely ever exist, though. There are not enough
people who would buy an M42 camera, and Pentax probably doesn't have the
funds to ressurrect Auto110 on a gamble that it might make money.
Note to Pentax: if you do ever make an Auto110 camera, I want credit. ;)
John Celio
--
http://www.neovenator.com
http://www.cafepress.com/neovenatorphoto
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
The big problem with a 110-sized DSLR is that small sensors suck. End
of story.
Paul
On Nov 21, 2008, at 4:03 PM, John Celio wrote:
More demand for Auto110 lens usage than M42?
Shirley,You cant be serious.
I am serious, and don't call me Shirley.
It actually has nothing to do with the lenses and everything to do
with
size.
These days, consumers want small, smaller and smallest. Back in 2002,
when I started selling cameras, people were amazed at how small the
little digital P&S cams were, but still wanted something smaller ("I
want pocket-size" was something we heard a lot). When the Pentax
Optio
S came out, we sold boatloads of them because it really was pocket
sized, and nothing else came close.
dSLRs follow the same trend, as can be seen in the Km/K2000, the
latest
Rebels and the smaller Olympus bodies. Then you have Micro 4/3rds,
which is even smaller yet (though whether you can call them SLR
cameras
is debatable, IMO).
I would bet real money that if you had an M42 dSLR and an Auto110 dSLR
and presented them to consumers, the latter would sell like hotcakes
while the former would sell maybe a crate and then rot in a warehouse
somewhere. Consumers (that is, the people who actually provide the
profits that keep companies afloat, as opposed to enthusiasts like
yourself who mostly spend money on used equipment) will not buy a
large
camera that lacks modern conveniences. I will admit that the Auto110
also lacks features, but it would be much easier to add autofocus, for
instance, to a bayonet-based lens system compared to a threaded
system.
My point is, using the Auto110 as a basis for a new dSLR would make an
awful lot more sense than M42 for reasons of size, convenience, size,
cost and size. Did I mention size?
Neither camera will likely ever exist, though. There are not enough
people who would buy an M42 camera, and Pentax probably doesn't have
the
funds to ressurrect Auto110 on a gamble that it might make money.
Note to Pentax: if you do ever make an Auto110 camera, I want
credit. ;)
John Celio
--
http://www.neovenator.com
http://www.cafepress.com/neovenatorphoto
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above
and follow the directions.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
But you could make a bloody small camera with a still much larger than
P&S sensor. Unfortunately Oly/Panny have already gone there with Micro
4/3rds.
-Adam
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 4:18 PM, PN Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The big problem with a 110-sized DSLR is that small sensors suck. End of
> story.
> Paul
> On Nov 21, 2008, at 4:03 PM, John Celio wrote:
>
>>> More demand for Auto110 lens usage than M42?
>>> Shirley,You cant be serious.
>>
>> I am serious, and don't call me Shirley.
>>
>> It actually has nothing to do with the lenses and everything to do with
>> size.
>>
>> These days, consumers want small, smaller and smallest. Back in 2002,
>> when I started selling cameras, people were amazed at how small the
>> little digital P&S cams were, but still wanted something smaller ("I
>> want pocket-size" was something we heard a lot). When the Pentax Optio
>> S came out, we sold boatloads of them because it really was pocket
>> sized, and nothing else came close.
>>
>> dSLRs follow the same trend, as can be seen in the Km/K2000, the latest
>> Rebels and the smaller Olympus bodies. Then you have Micro 4/3rds,
>> which is even smaller yet (though whether you can call them SLR cameras
>> is debatable, IMO).
>>
>> I would bet real money that if you had an M42 dSLR and an Auto110 dSLR
>> and presented them to consumers, the latter would sell like hotcakes
>> while the former would sell maybe a crate and then rot in a warehouse
>> somewhere. Consumers (that is, the people who actually provide the
>> profits that keep companies afloat, as opposed to enthusiasts like
>> yourself who mostly spend money on used equipment) will not buy a large
>> camera that lacks modern conveniences. I will admit that the Auto110
>> also lacks features, but it would be much easier to add autofocus, for
>> instance, to a bayonet-based lens system compared to a threaded system.
>>
>> My point is, using the Auto110 as a basis for a new dSLR would make an
>> awful lot more sense than M42 for reasons of size, convenience, size,
>> cost and size. Did I mention size?
>>
>> Neither camera will likely ever exist, though. There are not enough
>> people who would buy an M42 camera, and Pentax probably doesn't have the
>> funds to ressurrect Auto110 on a gamble that it might make money.
>>
>>
>> Note to Pentax: if you do ever make an Auto110 camera, I want credit. ;)
>>
>> John Celio
>>
>> --
>> http://www.neovenator.com
>> http://www.cafepress.com/neovenatorphoto
>>
>>
>> --
>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> PDML@pdml.net
>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
>> follow the directions.
>
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
> follow the directions.
>
--
M. Adam Maas
http://www.mawz.ca
Explorations of the City Around Us.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
Ooh! I've got it! A Digital Auto 110 with a 4/3 sensor and
interchangeable mounts for 4/3, 110 and M42 lenses. And a little auto
actuator bar thingy for the M42 lenses so JCO will STFU.
On 11/21/08, Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But you could make a bloody small camera with a still much larger than
> P&S sensor. Unfortunately Oly/Panny have already gone there with Micro
> 4/3rds.
>
> -Adam
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 4:18 PM, PN Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The big problem with a 110-sized DSLR is that small sensors suck. End of
> > story.
> > Paul
> > On Nov 21, 2008, at 4:03 PM, John Celio wrote:
> >
> >>> More demand for Auto110 lens usage than M42?
> >>> Shirley,You cant be serious.
> >>
> >> I am serious, and don't call me Shirley.
> >>
> >> It actually has nothing to do with the lenses and everything to do with
> >> size.
> >>
> >> These days, consumers want small, smaller and smallest. Back in 2002,
> >> when I started selling cameras, people were amazed at how small the
> >> little digital P&S cams were, but still wanted something smaller ("I
> >> want pocket-size" was something we heard a lot). When the Pentax Optio
> >> S came out, we sold boatloads of them because it really was pocket
> >> sized, and nothing else came close.
> >>
> >> dSLRs follow the same trend, as can be seen in the Km/K2000, the latest
> >> Rebels and the smaller Olympus bodies. Then you have Micro 4/3rds,
> >> which is even smaller yet (though whether you can call them SLR cameras
> >> is debatable, IMO).
> >>
> >> I would bet real money that if you had an M42 dSLR and an Auto110 dSLR
> >> and presented them to consumers, the latter would sell like hotcakes
> >> while the former would sell maybe a crate and then rot in a warehouse
> >> somewhere. Consumers (that is, the people who actually provide the
> >> profits that keep companies afloat, as opposed to enthusiasts like
> >> yourself who mostly spend money on used equipment) will not buy a large
> >> camera that lacks modern conveniences. I will admit that the Auto110
> >> also lacks features, but it would be much easier to add autofocus, for
> >> instance, to a bayonet-based lens system compared to a threaded system.
> >>
> >> My point is, using the Auto110 as a basis for a new dSLR would make an
> >> awful lot more sense than M42 for reasons of size, convenience, size,
> >> cost and size. Did I mention size?
> >>
> >> Neither camera will likely ever exist, though. There are not enough
> >> people who would buy an M42 camera, and Pentax probably doesn't have the
> >> funds to ressurrect Auto110 on a gamble that it might make money.
> >>
> >>
> >> Note to Pentax: if you do ever make an Auto110 camera, I want credit. ;)
> >>
> >> John Celio
> >>
> >> --
> >> http://www.neovenator.com
> >> http://www.cafepress.com/neovenatorphoto
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> >> PDML@pdml.net
> >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
> >> follow the directions.
> >
> >
> > --
> > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> > PDML@pdml.net
> > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
> > follow the directions.
> >
>
>
>
>
> --
> M. Adam Maas
> http://www.mawz.ca
> Explorations of the City Around Us.
>
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
> follow the directions.
>
--
Scott Loveless
New Cumberland, Pennsylvania, USA
http://www.twosixteen.com/fivetoedsloth/
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 3:06 PM, Bob W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You're paying 80% of the money for the 20% quality increase you get over the > competition. Once a certain level of quality is reached, the cost of making > it even better rises out of proportion to the cost of the baseline, so to > speak. It's the law of diminishing returns, isn't it? Is a Porsche Carrera worth two Corvettes? Is a Ferrari F430 worth 2 Porsches? The performance certainly isn't doubled in each case, because that would be impossible. If I had the money, I know what I'd be driving... cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 3:06 PM, Bob W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If you assume the M3's cost when new was roughly equivalent to the cost new > of an M8.2 today - £3,990 - then it has cost about £80 per year, £1.60 per > week or 23p per day. That's not much for such a nice object. It's a lot less > than I pay for my lunch, which lasts about 5 hours. I read somewhere that if one took the money equivalent of an M3 in 1953 (the year it was introduced) and invested it into a very conservative investment vehicle, that note would be worth many times the cost of a used 1953 M3 (unless of course there was some spectacular provenance involved). People complain about the cost of older M bodies and lenses, but considering that with proper maintenance they'll likely last forever, today's prices are pretty fair. cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
frank theriault wrote: On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 3:06 PM, Bob W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: You're paying 80% of the money for the 20% quality increase you get over the competition. Once a certain level of quality is reached, the cost of making it even better rises out of proportion to the cost of the baseline, so to speak. It's the law of diminishing returns, isn't it? Is a Porsche Carrera worth two Corvettes? Is a Ferrari F430 worth 2 Porsches? The performance certainly isn't doubled in each case, because that would be impossible. If I had the money, I know what I'd be driving... cheers, frank Me too an Aston Martin. ;-) Drew. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 10:39 AM, JC OConnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Man, I would die for a basic M42 DSLR at this point. After reading this whole thread, I have to ask: How soon are you likely to die? In my opinion, one day building a digital camera from close to scratch will no longer be particularly expensive. Sensors will settle down so what you build today is not obsolete in 9-13 months. At that point: 1) You will likely get a chance to buy an M42 DSLR. If no manufacturer makes it, a few from the hordes of engineers who are growing up on the Internet will. So perhaps no support but community support may be enough. We are already seeing changes in how small runs of products are made. The demand for bespoke hardware and electronics is high. The focus now is on bespoke hardware and mass produced hardware. There is little between and a lot of improvement to be made in the bespoke hardware market. 2) There is little point in salvaging a broken DSLR right now and trying to mate it to an m42 body. Those saying JC should do this are not being reasonable. Putting your money where your mouth is means, to me, getting a body manufacturer (Cosina?) to agree to a steady supply of bodies, getting a sensor manufacture to commit to providing sensors and putting all the electronics worked out. Mating a broken DSLR to an m42 body is a dead end. How many more broken DSLRs are you going to find and how much time are you going to spend figure out what is broken, adjusting to slight changes in even the same DSLR depending on when it was made or drastic changes to new bodies, etc... (in #2, I use you in a theoretical stance not meaning any specific person) I hope you get your M42 DSLR one day just like I hope I get a K mount camera that (uhoh!) fully supports the lenses and is full frame. Statistically, I have a while before I die but I lack patience so my current view is to settle for full-frame with a used Canon 5D (as the 5D II drives down prices). Finally, while I agree Pentax and Nikon did spend time making non-current lenses compatible with their bodies how much of this do you think was simply to convince those that had already brought into their systems to stay with them in digital land (and then sell them hordes of current lenses). I would wager that those who prefer to use m42, old K mount (K, M series), and other non-current lenses most of the time are a very small part of the market. Cymen "who is doped up on some good drugs after wisdom teeth surgery so..." Vig -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
> The big problem with a 110-sized DSLR is that small sensors suck. End > of story. Consumers don't know that, nor do the vast majority of them care. Besides, a 110-sized sensor would still be a lot bigger than the sensors in normal digital P&S cameras. John -- http://www.neovenator.com http://www.cafepress.com/neovenatorphoto -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
If I had the money, I know what I'd be driving... And that would be An inquiring mind would like to know. ;+) Kenneth Waller http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f - Original Message - From: "frank theriault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)? On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 3:06 PM, Bob W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: You're paying 80% of the money for the 20% quality increase you get over the competition. Once a certain level of quality is reached, the cost of making it even better rises out of proportion to the cost of the baseline, so to speak. It's the law of diminishing returns, isn't it? Is a Porsche Carrera worth two Corvettes? Is a Ferrari F430 worth 2 Porsches? The performance certainly isn't doubled in each case, because that would be impossible. If I had the money, I know what I'd be driving... cheers, frank -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
On 11/21/08, frank theriault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I read somewhere that if one took the money equivalent of an M3 in > 1953 (the year it was introduced) and invested it into a very > conservative investment vehicle, that note would be worth many times > the cost of a used 1953 M3 (unless of course there was some > spectacular provenance involved). People complain about the cost of > older M bodies and lenses, but considering that with proper > maintenance they'll likely last forever, today's prices are pretty > fair. You can pick up a functional M3 right now for well under $1000US. I'd have to sell almost all my Pentax gear to get an M3 and a single 50mm lens. And sometimes I think I just might do that. -- Scott Loveless New Cumberland, Pennsylvania, USA http://www.twosixteen.com/fivetoedsloth/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
I'd rather use the M42 lenses for landfill than placate the incessant noise. But no, I was out shooting a little while ago, Pentax Fish-Eye-Takumar 17mm f/4 on M42->FourThirds adapter, and having a good time with it. I don't need an aperture actuator or screw mount body ... either of those things is a waste of development money. G On Nov 21, 2008, at 1:40 PM, Scott Loveless wrote: Ooh! I've got it! A Digital Auto 110 with a 4/3 sensor and interchangeable mounts for 4/3, 110 and M42 lenses. And a little auto actuator bar thingy for the M42 lenses so JCO will STFU. On 1 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
On Nov 21, 2008, at 2:03 PM, Scott Loveless wrote: You can pick up a functional M3 right now for well under $1000US. I'd have to sell almost all my Pentax gear to get an M3 and a single 50mm lens. And sometimes I think I just might do that. An Epson R-D1 traded on Ebay this week for $1200 or so. That and two lenses would do the business for most of my work. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
This? http://www.trekbikes.com/us/en/bikes/road/madone/madone69pro/ ;-) If I had the money, I know what I'd be driving... cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 5:32 PM, Steve Desjardins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This? > > http://www.trekbikes.com/us/en/bikes/road/madone/madone69pro/ Nah, more like this: http://www.colnago.com/pistaENG.html ;-) cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
On 11/21/08, Steve Desjardins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This? > > http://www.trekbikes.com/us/en/bikes/road/madone/madone69pro/ You don't need nine grand for that. You need fifty bucks for bolt cutters. -- Scott Loveless New Cumberland, Pennsylvania, USA http://www.twosixteen.com/fivetoedsloth/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
On 21/11/08, Godfrey DiGiorgi, discombobulated, unleashed: >I'd rather use the M42 lenses for landfill than placate the incessant >noise. I've been looking in this thread. Had to happen. Mark! -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
> After reading this whole thread, I have to ask: How soon are you > likely to die? Mark! > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Cymen Vig > Sent: 21 November 2008 22:01 > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)? > > On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 10:39 AM, JC OConnell > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Man, I would die for a basic M42 DSLR at this point. > > After reading this whole thread, I have to ask: How soon are you > likely to die? In my opinion, one day building a digital camera from > close to scratch will no longer be particularly expensive. Sensors > will settle down so what you build today is not obsolete in 9-13 > months. At that point: > > 1) You will likely get a chance to buy an M42 DSLR. If no manufacturer > makes it, a few from the hordes of engineers who are growing up on the > Internet will. So perhaps no support but community support may be > enough. We are already seeing changes in how small runs of products > are made. The demand for bespoke hardware and electronics is high. The > focus now is on bespoke hardware and mass produced hardware. There is > little between and a lot of improvement to be made in the bespoke > hardware market. > > 2) There is little point in salvaging a broken DSLR right now and > trying to mate it to an m42 body. Those saying JC should do this are > not being reasonable. Putting your money where your mouth is means, to > me, getting a body manufacturer (Cosina?) to agree to a steady supply > of bodies, getting a sensor manufacture to commit to providing sensors > and putting all the electronics worked out. Mating a broken DSLR to an > m42 body is a dead end. How many more broken DSLRs are you going to > find and how much time are you going to spend figure out what is > broken, adjusting to slight changes in even the same DSLR depending on > when it was made or drastic changes to new bodies, etc... > > (in #2, I use you in a theoretical stance not meaning any > specific person) > > I hope you get your M42 DSLR one day just like I hope I get a K mount > camera that (uhoh!) fully supports the lenses and is full frame. > Statistically, I have a while before I die but I lack patience so my > current view is to settle for full-frame with a used Canon 5D (as the > 5D II drives down prices). > > Finally, while I agree Pentax and Nikon did spend time making > non-current lenses compatible with their bodies how much of this do > you think was simply to convince those that had already brought into > their systems to stay with them in digital land (and then sell them > hordes of current lenses). I would wager that those who prefer to use > m42, old K mount (K, M series), and other non-current lenses most of > the time are a very small part of the market. > > Cymen "who is doped up on some good drugs after wisdom teeth > surgery so..." Vig > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly > above and follow the directions. > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
Bob W wrote: Keith Whaley wrote: I've an opinion on this too. (Full of 'em tonight! :-D Does anyone believe Leica's bodies and lenses justify their obscene prices, from a manufacturing and assembly cost standpoint? Is there THAT much labor in either one? You're paying 80% of the money for the 20% quality increase you get over the competition. Once a certain level of quality is reached, the cost of making it even better rises out of proportion to the cost of the baseline, so to speak. Professionals who buy them must think the price is justified. Magnum photographers, for example, are not fools. It's unlikely that the prestige of them cuts a lot of ice. Amateurs don't have to justify them. Professionals and amateurs alike are also entitled to enjoy the history & romance attached to owning a Leica, and the pleasure of using (or even just admiring) a beautiful object. I think it was Ruskin, or perhaps William Morris, who said 'You should have nothing in your house that is not useful or beautiful'. Leicas are both useful and beautiful. Part of their beauty is their prestige, I suppose. My watch is a very nice Tag Heuer, and I know other people who have Rolexes, Breitlingers and Omegas. These watches are all beautifully made. None of them tells the time any better than the £25- plastic Timex I also own. Few people can justify owning these watches on utilitarian grounds - even scuba divers can get perfectly good diving watches for a lower price - but they're beautiful, well-made objects which work extremely well. The appeal of Leicas is the same sort of thing. I understand your justification message very well. Thanks for that... Years and years ago, I sacrificed a fair bit of personal cash to buy a nearly perfect Contax IIIa. Absolutely loved that bit of machinery you could take lovely photographs with! In time I had to trade it off for cash to cover other exigencies... Stuff happens when you're young and foolish. As the years passed, I found myself blessed with spare cash from time to time, and the memory of that lovely IIIa came back, and oddly enough I bought one. The silky smoothness of it's action was unchanged. Matched my hoary old memories perfectly. A fantastic piece of the camera building art. Totally worth every cent... Problem is, my hands and joints are no longer happy assuming the "Contax R.F. position", and it's not worth it to use that camera any more. So, here I am with what to me is a Leica R.F. equivalent I can't effectively use. Yes, having such a camera in your hands is an experience few other cameras can match. I still think their price is too high, just for that red dot. But I do appreciate the excellence of the build. Thanks to one and all for the insight and opinion. After all, that's why we are here, no? keith -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 09:59:10PM +, drew wrote: > frank theriault wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 3:06 PM, Bob W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> You're paying 80% of the money for the 20% quality increase you get over the >>> competition. Once a certain level of quality is reached, the cost of making >>> it even better rises out of proportion to the cost of the baseline, so to >>> speak. >> >> It's the law of diminishing returns, isn't it? >> >> Is a Porsche Carrera worth two Corvettes? Is a Ferrari F430 worth 2 >> Porsches? The performance certainly isn't doubled in each case, >> because that would be impossible. If I had the money, I know what I'd >> be driving... >> >> cheers, >> frank >> > > Me too an Aston Martin. ;-) When I was car-shopping a couple of years ago I (somewhat reluctantly) passed on the Lotus Elise - it was just too awkward to get in and out (especially for my wife, who has limited mobility in one knee). The salesman suggested the Aston Martin as an alternative :-) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
[...] > > Thanks to one and all for the insight and opinion. After all, > that's why we are > here, no? > and this is probably the best looking and most desirable camera I've ever seen: http://www.flickr.com/photos/aperture64/2739236380/ Bob -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
On Nov 21, 2008, at 3:33 PM, Bob W wrote: and this is probably the best looking and most desirable camera I've ever seen: http://www.flickr.com/photos/aperture64/2739236380/ Lovely stuff. Some yutz will probably paint it with Krylon because it looks icky and worn. G -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
Scott Loveless wrote: Ooh! I've got it! A Digital Auto 110 with a 4/3 sensor and interchangeable mounts for 4/3, 110 and M42 lenses. And a little auto actuator bar thingy for the M42 lenses so JCO will STFU. Quote of the year contender, I'd say... -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
The pedals are missing. (I'll have to hide these posts from Debbie. She's the bicycle fan) >>> "frank theriault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 11/21/2008 5:39 PM >>> On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 5:32 PM, Steve Desjardins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This? > > http://www.trekbikes.com/us/en/bikes/road/madone/madone69pro/ Nah, more like this: http://www.colnago.com/pistaENG.html ;-) cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. !SIG:492738c168666189821857! -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
You can pick up a nice IIIf or IIIc for $400. Add a Summicron 50/2 Collapsible for another $400 or so, and you have a highly functional and quite beautiful camera. Paul (who shot almost exclusively with his IIIf RD and Summicron for a year or so-- a great experiende) On Nov 21, 2008, at 5:03 PM, Scott Loveless wrote: On 11/21/08, frank theriault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I read somewhere that if one took the money equivalent of an M3 in 1953 (the year it was introduced) and invested it into a very conservative investment vehicle, that note would be worth many times the cost of a used 1953 M3 (unless of course there was some spectacular provenance involved). People complain about the cost of older M bodies and lenses, but considering that with proper maintenance they'll likely last forever, today's prices are pretty fair. You can pick up a functional M3 right now for well under $1000US. I'd have to sell almost all my Pentax gear to get an M3 and a single 50mm lens. And sometimes I think I just might do that. -- Scott Loveless New Cumberland, Pennsylvania, USA http://www.twosixteen.com/fivetoedsloth/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
These are kind of pretty too: http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2870904 On Nov 21, 2008, at 6:33 PM, Bob W wrote: [...] Thanks to one and all for the insight and opinion. After all, that's why we are here, no? and this is probably the best looking and most desirable camera I've ever seen: http://www.flickr.com/photos/aperture64/2739236380/ Bob -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
From: "JC OConnell" you dont understand, the lenses create the market/need for the body, you dont have to convince the person who would buy this camera to buy it, they already would want it. At least anyone with extensive experience with M42 lenses would. The camera manufacturers make their money selling you new lenses. None of them are interested in making a body to fit your existing lenses, especially decades old existing lenses, no matter how good you think the lenses are. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
From: Joseph McAllister John, I was in the Navy back in the 60s. When a new version of a lens or camera came out and was listed in the catalog of new gear, we bought it. It was my job, when the new stuff arrived, to sit on the loading dock at the rear of the photolab and use a hammer and a straight slot screwdriver to drive a hole through the cameras, and through the glass in the lenses. Watch many a Nikon and lenses die in my hands. It was a good thing. I'm not sure I understand the purpose of that. And, just out of curiosity, how much did the hammer cost? -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 5:03 AM, John Celio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> More demand for Auto110 lens usage than M42? >> Shirley,You cant be serious. > > I am serious, and don't call me Shirley. Shirley, you jest. > It actually has nothing to do with the lenses and everything to do with > size. > > These days, consumers want small, smaller and smallest. ... That's always been a factor. Olympus OM series, Pentax ME, MX, and others sold well partly because of their size. Even earlier, folding cameras and collapsible lenses were common. But you may be right; today it seems to be more of a critical factor. > My point is, using the Auto110 as a basis for a new dSLR would make an > awful lot more sense than M42 for reasons of size, convenience, size, > cost and size. Did I mention size? Olympus Pen? > Neither camera will likely ever exist, though. Right. I wonder if there's any chance of adapters, though. The economics for those are different. No massive design and tooling costs, as for a camera. An adapter that allowed full-aperature metering for M42 on K mount would sell, as would one for Olympus Pen lenses on micro 4/3. -- Sandy Harris, Quanzhou, Fujian, China -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
From: "Scott Loveless" Ooh! I've got it! A Digital Auto 110 with a 4/3 sensor and interchangeable mounts for 4/3, 110 and M42 lenses. And a little auto actuator bar thingy for the M42 lenses so JCO will STFU. I don't know about that, but wouldn't it be awful easy to make a full-frame sensor for the 110 format? Anyway, it makes as much sense as an M42 DSLR. On 11/21/08, Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But you could make a bloody small camera with a still much larger than > P&S sensor. Unfortunately Oly/Panny have already gone there with Micro > 4/3rds. > > -Adam > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
From: "frank theriault" On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 5:32 PM, Steve Desjardins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This? > > http://www.trekbikes.com/us/en/bikes/road/madone/madone69pro/ Nah, more like this: http://www.colnago.com/pistaENG.html $9,000 and it don't even come with pedals. If I had money, I wouldn't be driving at all. I'd have someone else behind the wheel, so I could have my hands free for the camera. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
On Nov 21, 2008, at 17:46 , John Sessoms wrote: From: Joseph McAllister John, I was in the Navy back in the 60s. When a new version of a lens or camera came out and was listed in the catalog of new gear, we bought it. It was my job, when the new stuff arrived, to sit on the loading dock at the rear of the photolab and use a hammer and a straight slot screwdriver to drive a hole through the cameras, and through the glass in the lenses. Watch many a Nikon and lenses die in my hands. It was a good thing. I'm not sure I understand the purpose of that. It was referred to as DNC or D&C, and was the only way to remove out of date equipment from inventory. To maintain them in inventory, and or try to sell them as used with their obligatory Navy part numbers inscribed on them would cost more than it was worth. If this were not the case, JC would be lamenting the unavailability of stealth technology for his F-86 SuperSabre he used to commute with. And, just out of curiosity, how much did the hammer cost? $1.23 back then. The post-WWII military-industrial-complex had not yet gotten down that far in the national inventory. Joseph McAllister [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
Regarding the watches, I have about 20 50's-70's vintage American watches ( Swiss automatic movt.s ) that once adjusted, keep time well enough for me. Sure quartz is more accurate, but its no fun. I hate those one tick per second second hands on the quartz's. I hate batteries on the quartz's too. Mechanical timepieces are so much more enjoyable even though they are not as accurate as a quartz. give me a sweep second hand anyday. I have two rules with watches now, if it takes a battery or needs an instruction sheet to work it, I dont want it! JC O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob W Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 3:06 PM To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' Subject: RE: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)? > > I've an opinion on this too. (Full of 'em tonight! :-D > > Does anyone believe Leica's bodies and lenses justify their > obscene prices, from > a manufacturing and assembly cost standpoint? Is there THAT > much labor in either > one? > You're paying 80% of the money for the 20% quality increase you get over the competition. Once a certain level of quality is reached, the cost of making it even better rises out of proportion to the cost of the baseline, so to speak. Professionals who buy them must think the price is justified. Magnum photographers, for example, are not fools. It's unlikely that the prestige of them cuts a lot of ice. Amateurs don't have to justify them. Professionals and amateurs alike are also entitled to enjoy the history & romance attached to owning a Leica, and the pleasure of using (or even just admiring) a beautiful object. I think it was Ruskin, or perhaps William Morris, who said 'You should have nothing in your house that is not useful or beautiful'. Leicas are both useful and beautiful. Part of their beauty is their prestige, I suppose. My watch is a very nice Tag Heuer, and I know other people who have Rolexes, Breitlingers and Omegas. These watches are all beautifully made. None of them tells the time any better than the £25- plastic Timex I also own. Few people can justify owning these watches on utilitarian grounds - even scuba divers can get perfectly good diving watches for a lower price - but they're beautiful, well-made objects which work extremely well. The appeal of Leicas is the same sort of thing. > Are they essentially hand made, like some outrageously > expensive cars are? Some > of the well-known marques are essentially hand made and hand > fit, with > incredible number of man-hours in them. Is it like that way > with Leica? At least > their renown M series rangefinders and lenses? > I think (but don't know) that they are hand assembled and finished. In the days of the M3 and M2 I believe they were hand made even unto the parts, but in an effort to reduce costs they started making parts to a degree of tolerance, from cheaper materials (presumably obtainable in this solar system), beginning with the M4-2. I have an M3 and an M4-2, and the M3 does feel better quality. That's not to say that the M4-2 is not also very high quality. Both of these cameras are likely to outlive me. The M3 is 50 years old in August next year and still works beautifully. My lenses are from 1970 (50/2 Summicron) to 1994 (35/1.4 Summilux), and they all work perfectly well on my 2007 M8 digital body as well as on the film bodies. The optical quality of the lenses is outstanding. If you assume the M3's cost when new was roughly equivalent to the cost new of an M8.2 today - £3,990 - then it has cost about £80 per year, £1.60 per week or 23p per day. That's not much for such a nice object. It's a lot less than I pay for my lunch, which lasts about 5 hours. Bob > It seems to me they're on the perpetual brink of bankruptcy > because they're too > bloody expensive except for those professionals (well off or > otherwise) who > simply must have a Leica, not because they're honestly that good... > Capable and durable? So it seems, but worth the tab? That's > the question. > It seems you're primarily paying for the name, as with many > products, but the > purchase price of a Leica seems untoward, for what you're getting... > > Just my opinion...not necessarily the truth. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
Yeah, M42 lenses can do FF digital! (24x36mm).
JC O'Connell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
PN Stenquist
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 4:19 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
The big problem with a 110-sized DSLR is that small sensors suck. End
of story.
Paul
On Nov 21, 2008, at 4:03 PM, John Celio wrote:
>> More demand for Auto110 lens usage than M42?
>> Shirley,You cant be serious.
>
> I am serious, and don't call me Shirley.
>
> It actually has nothing to do with the lenses and everything to do
> with
> size.
>
> These days, consumers want small, smaller and smallest. Back in 2002,
> when I started selling cameras, people were amazed at how small the
> little digital P&S cams were, but still wanted something smaller ("I
> want pocket-size" was something we heard a lot). When the Pentax
> Optio
> S came out, we sold boatloads of them because it really was pocket
> sized, and nothing else came close.
>
> dSLRs follow the same trend, as can be seen in the Km/K2000, the
> latest
> Rebels and the smaller Olympus bodies. Then you have Micro 4/3rds,
> which is even smaller yet (though whether you can call them SLR
> cameras
> is debatable, IMO).
>
> I would bet real money that if you had an M42 dSLR and an Auto110 dSLR
> and presented them to consumers, the latter would sell like hotcakes
> while the former would sell maybe a crate and then rot in a warehouse
> somewhere. Consumers (that is, the people who actually provide the
> profits that keep companies afloat, as opposed to enthusiasts like
> yourself who mostly spend money on used equipment) will not buy a
> large
> camera that lacks modern conveniences. I will admit that the Auto110
> also lacks features, but it would be much easier to add autofocus, for
> instance, to a bayonet-based lens system compared to a threaded
> system.
>
> My point is, using the Auto110 as a basis for a new dSLR would make an
> awful lot more sense than M42 for reasons of size, convenience, size,
> cost and size. Did I mention size?
>
> Neither camera will likely ever exist, though. There are not enough
> people who would buy an M42 camera, and Pentax probably doesn't have
> the
> funds to ressurrect Auto110 on a gamble that it might make money.
>
>
> Note to Pentax: if you do ever make an Auto110 camera, I want
> credit. ;)
>
> John Celio
>
> --
> http://www.neovenator.com http://www.cafepress.com/neovenatorphoto
>
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above
> and follow the directions.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
RE: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
I dont believe in dimishing return theory. If somethings perceptably better, it doesnt matter HOW MUCH MORE it costs, its still desireable and worth it to those that can afford it. Reminds me of Hi-Fi. I bought a $6K phono setup. My family thinks I am crazy, but I know people with $30K turntable setups, and guess what, they do sound better than $6K setups. To each his own... JC O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of frank theriault Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 4:52 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)? On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 3:06 PM, Bob W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You're paying 80% of the money for the 20% quality increase you get > over the competition. Once a certain level of quality is reached, the > cost of making it even better rises out of proportion to the cost of > the baseline, so to speak. It's the law of diminishing returns, isn't it? Is a Porsche Carrera worth two Corvettes? Is a Ferrari F430 worth 2 Porsches? The performance certainly isn't doubled in each case, because that would be impossible. If I had the money, I know what I'd be driving... cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
Of course I would want a FF M42 DSLR... JC O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Cymen Vig Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 5:01 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)? On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 10:39 AM, JC OConnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Man, I would die for a basic M42 DSLR at this point. After reading this whole thread, I have to ask: How soon are you likely to die? In my opinion, one day building a digital camera from close to scratch will no longer be particularly expensive. Sensors will settle down so what you build today is not obsolete in 9-13 months. At that point: 1) You will likely get a chance to buy an M42 DSLR. If no manufacturer makes it, a few from the hordes of engineers who are growing up on the Internet will. So perhaps no support but community support may be enough. We are already seeing changes in how small runs of products are made. The demand for bespoke hardware and electronics is high. The focus now is on bespoke hardware and mass produced hardware. There is little between and a lot of improvement to be made in the bespoke hardware market. 2) There is little point in salvaging a broken DSLR right now and trying to mate it to an m42 body. Those saying JC should do this are not being reasonable. Putting your money where your mouth is means, to me, getting a body manufacturer (Cosina?) to agree to a steady supply of bodies, getting a sensor manufacture to commit to providing sensors and putting all the electronics worked out. Mating a broken DSLR to an m42 body is a dead end. How many more broken DSLRs are you going to find and how much time are you going to spend figure out what is broken, adjusting to slight changes in even the same DSLR depending on when it was made or drastic changes to new bodies, etc... (in #2, I use you in a theoretical stance not meaning any specific person) I hope you get your M42 DSLR one day just like I hope I get a K mount camera that (uhoh!) fully supports the lenses and is full frame. Statistically, I have a while before I die but I lack patience so my current view is to settle for full-frame with a used Canon 5D (as the 5D II drives down prices). Finally, while I agree Pentax and Nikon did spend time making non-current lenses compatible with their bodies how much of this do you think was simply to convince those that had already brought into their systems to stay with them in digital land (and then sell them hordes of current lenses). I would wager that those who prefer to use m42, old K mount (K, M series), and other non-current lenses most of the time are a very small part of the market. Cymen "who is doped up on some good drugs after wisdom teeth surgery so..." Vig -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
The problem with that theory is people who dont know shit about something are not the people who pony up the bucks. Its advanced amateurs and pros, knowledgable people, who lay down the money. Try to convince a newbie to buy a fancy anything, they dont. Only the people who know and appreciate the differences in the finer things in life pay/play the game. JC O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Celio Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 5:01 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)? > The big problem with a 110-sized DSLR is that small sensors suck. End > of story. Consumers don't know that, nor do the vast majority of them care. Besides, a 110-sized sensor would still be a lot bigger than the sensors in normal digital P&S cameras. John -- http://www.neovenator.com http://www.cafepress.com/neovenatorphoto -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
Leica lenses arent better because they are leica, they are better because they are RF lenses with easier to deal with design parameters than SLR lenses, especially short focal length lenses. this new short registration micro 4/3 system ( its not an SLR) might give Leica a pain in the ass JC O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Scott Loveless Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 5:03 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)? On 11/21/08, frank theriault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I read somewhere that if one took the money equivalent of an M3 in > 1953 (the year it was introduced) and invested it into a very > conservative investment vehicle, that note would be worth many times > the cost of a used 1953 M3 (unless of course there was some > spectacular provenance involved). People complain about the cost of > older M bodies and lenses, but considering that with proper > maintenance they'll likely last forever, today's prices are pretty > fair. You can pick up a functional M3 right now for well under $1000US. I'd have to sell almost all my Pentax gear to get an M3 and a single 50mm lens. And sometimes I think I just might do that. -- Scott Loveless New Cumberland, Pennsylvania, USA http://www.twosixteen.com/fivetoedsloth/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
Eww... A FF fisheye on a tiny 4/3 sensor? Thats a semi fisheye which is about as appealing to me as getting semi-laid. JC O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Godfrey DiGiorgi Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 5:24 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)? I'd rather use the M42 lenses for landfill than placate the incessant noise. But no, I was out shooting a little while ago, Pentax Fish-Eye-Takumar 17mm f/4 on M42->FourThirds adapter, and having a good time with it. I don't need an aperture actuator or screw mount body ... either of those things is a waste of development money. G On Nov 21, 2008, at 1:40 PM, Scott Loveless wrote: > Ooh! I've got it! A Digital Auto 110 with a 4/3 sensor and > interchangeable mounts for 4/3, 110 and M42 lenses. And a little auto > actuator bar thingy for the M42 lenses so JCO will STFU. > > On 1 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
This thread reminds me of that early 21st century vaporware, DIGITAL FILM! Remember that one? It was a little module you could drop in your film camera and make it a DSLR. I would settle for that and use a spottie if somebody could muster that up. JC O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Francis Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 6:30 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)? On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 09:59:10PM +, drew wrote: > frank theriault wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 3:06 PM, Bob W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> You're paying 80% of the money for the 20% quality increase you get >>> over the competition. Once a certain level of quality is reached, >>> the cost of making it even better rises out of proportion to the >>> cost of the baseline, so to speak. >> >> It's the law of diminishing returns, isn't it? >> >> Is a Porsche Carrera worth two Corvettes? Is a Ferrari F430 worth 2 >> Porsches? The performance certainly isn't doubled in each case, >> because that would be impossible. If I had the money, I know what >> I'd be driving... >> >> cheers, >> frank >> > > Me too an Aston Martin. ;-) When I was car-shopping a couple of years ago I (somewhat reluctantly) passed on the Lotus Elise - it was just too awkward to get in and out (especially for my wife, who has limited mobility in one knee). The salesman suggested the Aston Martin as an alternative :-) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
Advanced amateurs, pros and "knowledgeable people" make up a relatively small portion of the actual market (two years ago I could have provided you actual data on this, but I don't have access to that anymore). Leica and the other brands that depend on that market segment have been on the edge of profitability for years now, compared to Canon and other brands that cater to all market segments and have been doing well. Leica, Hasselbad and others survive because they have the strongest reputations and professionals swear by them, causing advanced amateurs to covet them. M42 and Pentax do not have this luxury. No one from the high-end market segments think of the M42 or K mount systems as being particularly high-end or worth shelling out the big bucks. Pentax and others have to cater to "people who don't know shit" to make a profit. That is the hard truth. John -- http://www.neovenator.com http://www.cafepress.com/neovenatorphoto - Original Message - From: "JC OConnell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Pentax-Discuss Mail List'" Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 8:03 PM Subject: RE: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)? The problem with that theory is people who dont know shit about something are not the people who pony up the bucks. Its advanced amateurs and pros, knowledgable people, who lay down the money. Try to convince a newbie to buy a fancy anything, they dont. Only the people who know and appreciate the differences in the finer things in life pay/play the game. JC O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Celio Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 5:01 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)? The big problem with a 110-sized DSLR is that small sensors suck. End of story. Consumers don't know that, nor do the vast majority of them care. Besides, a 110-sized sensor would still be a lot bigger than the sensors in normal digital P&S cameras. John -- http://www.neovenator.com http://www.cafepress.com/neovenatorphoto -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.9/1804 - Release Date: 11/21/2008 6:24 PM -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
There would also be little enough reason to resurrect the auto 110
cameras as the format is roughly the same size as the 4:3 (Olydack),
format. those cameras aren't that much smaller that APS-C/DX format
cameras. The limiting factor seems to be the electronics...
John Celio wrote:
More demand for Auto110 lens usage than M42?
Shirley,You cant be serious.
I am serious, and don't call me Shirley.
It actually has nothing to do with the lenses and everything to do with
size.
These days, consumers want small, smaller and smallest. Back in 2002,
when I started selling cameras, people were amazed at how small the
little digital P&S cams were, but still wanted something smaller ("I
want pocket-size" was something we heard a lot). When the Pentax Optio
S came out, we sold boatloads of them because it really was pocket
sized, and nothing else came close.
dSLRs follow the same trend, as can be seen in the Km/K2000, the latest
Rebels and the smaller Olympus bodies. Then you have Micro 4/3rds,
which is even smaller yet (though whether you can call them SLR cameras
is debatable, IMO).
I would bet real money that if you had an M42 dSLR and an Auto110 dSLR
and presented them to consumers, the latter would sell like hotcakes
while the former would sell maybe a crate and then rot in a warehouse
somewhere. Consumers (that is, the people who actually provide the
profits that keep companies afloat, as opposed to enthusiasts like
yourself who mostly spend money on used equipment) will not buy a large
camera that lacks modern conveniences. I will admit that the Auto110
also lacks features, but it would be much easier to add autofocus, for
instance, to a bayonet-based lens system compared to a threaded system.
My point is, using the Auto110 as a basis for a new dSLR would make an
awful lot more sense than M42 for reasons of size, convenience, size,
cost and size. Did I mention size?
Neither camera will likely ever exist, though. There are not enough
people who would buy an M42 camera, and Pentax probably doesn't have the
funds to ressurrect Auto110 on a gamble that it might make money.
Note to Pentax: if you do ever make an Auto110 camera, I want credit. ;)
John Celio
--
http://www.neovenator.com
http://www.cafepress.com/neovenatorphoto
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
--
You get further with a kind word and a gun, than with a kind word alone.
--Al Capone.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
The actual size of a 110 size format vs the 4:3 format sensor is about
the same.
Observe the following table
Format 110 4:3
Horz. 17mm17.4mm
Vert. 13mm13.4
Diag. 21.422.4
Small sensors may suck, but the 110 size format wouldn't suck much more
than the 4:3 sensor.
PN Stenquist wrote:
The big problem with a 110-sized DSLR is that small sensors suck. End
of story.
Paul
On Nov 21, 2008, at 4:03 PM, John Celio wrote:
More demand for Auto110 lens usage than M42?
Shirley,You cant be serious.
I am serious, and don't call me Shirley.
It actually has nothing to do with the lenses and everything to do with
size.
These days, consumers want small, smaller and smallest. Back in 2002,
when I started selling cameras, people were amazed at how small the
little digital P&S cams were, but still wanted something smaller ("I
want pocket-size" was something we heard a lot). When the Pentax Optio
S came out, we sold boatloads of them because it really was pocket
sized, and nothing else came close.
dSLRs follow the same trend, as can be seen in the Km/K2000, the latest
Rebels and the smaller Olympus bodies. Then you have Micro 4/3rds,
which is even smaller yet (though whether you can call them SLR cameras
is debatable, IMO).
I would bet real money that if you had an M42 dSLR and an Auto110 dSLR
and presented them to consumers, the latter would sell like hotcakes
while the former would sell maybe a crate and then rot in a warehouse
somewhere. Consumers (that is, the people who actually provide the
profits that keep companies afloat, as opposed to enthusiasts like
yourself who mostly spend money on used equipment) will not buy a large
camera that lacks modern conveniences. I will admit that the Auto110
also lacks features, but it would be much easier to add autofocus, for
instance, to a bayonet-based lens system compared to a threaded system.
My point is, using the Auto110 as a basis for a new dSLR would make an
awful lot more sense than M42 for reasons of size, convenience, size,
cost and size. Did I mention size?
Neither camera will likely ever exist, though. There are not enough
people who would buy an M42 camera, and Pentax probably doesn't have the
funds to ressurrect Auto110 on a gamble that it might make money.
Note to Pentax: if you do ever make an Auto110 camera, I want credit. ;)
John Celio
--
http://www.neovenator.com
http://www.cafepress.com/neovenatorphoto
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above
and follow the directions.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.
--
You get further with a kind word and a gun, than with a kind word alone.
--Al Capone.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
drew wrote: frank theriault wrote: On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 3:06 PM, Bob W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: You're paying 80% of the money for the 20% quality increase you get over the competition. Once a certain level of quality is reached, the cost of making it even better rises out of proportion to the cost of the baseline, so to speak. It's the law of diminishing returns, isn't it? Is a Porsche Carrera worth two Corvettes? Is a Ferrari F430 worth 2 Porsches? The performance certainly isn't doubled in each case, because that would be impossible. If I had the money, I know what I'd be driving... cheers, frank Me too an Aston Martin. ;-) You guys are pikers... 1937 Cord 812 Phaeton. Drew. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- You get further with a kind word and a gun, than with a kind word alone. --Al Capone. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
Geez John, a 110 sized sensor wouldn't be that much smaller than a current 4:3 system sensor, (doesn't anyone look anything up anymore?) John Celio wrote: The big problem with a 110-sized DSLR is that small sensors suck. End of story. Consumers don't know that, nor do the vast majority of them care. Besides, a 110-sized sensor would still be a lot bigger than the sensors in normal digital P&S cameras. John -- http://www.neovenator.com http://www.cafepress.com/neovenatorphoto -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- You get further with a kind word and a gun, than with a kind word alone. --Al Capone. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
Oh, yea, I forgot to add, supercharged... P. J. Alling wrote: drew wrote: frank theriault wrote: On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 3:06 PM, Bob W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: You're paying 80% of the money for the 20% quality increase you get over the competition. Once a certain level of quality is reached, the cost of making it even better rises out of proportion to the cost of the baseline, so to speak. It's the law of diminishing returns, isn't it? Is a Porsche Carrera worth two Corvettes? Is a Ferrari F430 worth 2 Porsches? The performance certainly isn't doubled in each case, because that would be impossible. If I had the money, I know what I'd be driving... cheers, frank Me too an Aston Martin. ;-) You guys are pikers... 1937 Cord 812 Phaeton. Drew. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- You get further with a kind word and a gun, than with a kind word alone. --Al Capone. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
Geez John, a 110 sized sensor wouldn't be that much smaller than a current 4:3 system sensor, (doesn't anyone look anything up anymore?) I was writing from work, didn't have the time. Cut me some slack. John -- http://www.neovenator.com http://www.cafepress.com/neovenatorphoto -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
On 11/22/08, John Celio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Cut me some slack. You do realize this is the PDML? -- Scott Loveless New Cumberland, Pennsylvania, USA http://www.twosixteen.com/fivetoedsloth/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
Indeed they are. > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of PN Stenquist > Sent: 22 November 2008 01:36 > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)? > > These are kind of pretty too: > http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2870904 > On Nov 21, 2008, at 6:33 PM, Bob W wrote: > > > [...] > >> > >> Thanks to one and all for the insight and opinion. After all, > >> that's why we are > >> here, no? > >> > > > > > > and this is probably the best looking and most desirable > camera I've > > ever > > seen: > > http://www.flickr.com/photos/aperture64/2739236380/ > > > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
Naturally. And since you're already wishing for the impossible why not also ask for it to come supplied with a crack team of international whores dressed in spangly catsuits to stroke your testicles every time you expose a frame. > > Of course I would want a FF M42 DSLR... > > JC O'Connell > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 3:00 PM, Scott Loveless <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 11/22/08, John Celio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Cut me some slack. > > You do realize this is the PDML? Mark! -- Sandy Harris, Quanzhou, Fujian, China -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
Bob W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Naturally. And since you're already wishing for the impossible why not also > ask for it to come supplied with a crack team of international whores > dressed in spangly catsuits to stroke your testicles every time you expose a > frame. No way. Spangles are tacky. -- Sandy Harris, Quanzhou, Fujian, China -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
On Nov 21, 2008, at 21:52 , P. J. Alling wrote: drew wrote: frank theriault wrote: On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 3:06 PM, Bob W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: You're paying 80% of the money for the 20% quality increase you get over the competition. Once a certain level of quality is reached, the cost of making it even better rises out of proportion to the cost of the baseline, so to speak. It's the law of diminishing returns, isn't it? Is a Porsche Carrera worth two Corvettes? Is a Ferrari F430 worth 2 Porsches? The performance certainly isn't doubled in each case, because that would be impossible. If I had the money, I know what I'd be driving... cheers, frank Me too an Aston Martin. ;-) You guys are pikers... 1937 Cord 812 Phaeton. Now you're talking! Loved that gearbox sound... But I settled for Porsches. :-) Joseph McAllister Lots of gear, not much time -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
From: "Bob W" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Naturally. And since you're already wishing for the impossible why not also ask for it to come supplied with a crack team of international whores dressed in spangly catsuits to stroke your testicles every time you expose a frame. > > Of course I would want a FF M42 DSLR... > > JC O'Connell Hmmm? I think I'd want one too then. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
On Nov 22, 2008, at 9:43 AM, Joseph McAllister wrote: ... Me too an Aston Martin. ;-) You guys are pikers... 1937 Cord 812 Phaeton. Now you're talking! Loved that gearbox sound... But I settled for Porsches. :-) Either a Citroën CV11 or a Bugatti Atalanta Electron SC35 Coupé for classics. (hope I got the numbers and spelling right) But in all honesty, I like my Toyota Prius a lot and don't really want anything else at present. Leica lenses, on the other hand, I'm willing to pay lots extra for. G -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
On 11/22/08, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Nov 22, 2008, at 9:43 AM, Joseph McAllister wrote: > > > > > > > ... Me too an Aston Martin. ;-) > > > > > > > You guys are pikers... > > > > > > 1937 Cord 812 Phaeton. > > > > > > > Now you're talking! > > > > Loved that gearbox sound... > > > > But I settled for Porsches. :-) > > > > Either a Citroën CV11 or a Bugatti Atalanta Electron SC35 Coupé for > classics. (hope I got the numbers and spelling right) Toyota 2000GT. But I'm not picky. -- Scott Loveless New Cumberland, Pennsylvania, USA http://www.twosixteen.com/fivetoedsloth/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
If I had money, I wouldn't be driving at all. I'd have someone else behind the wheel, so I could have my hands free for the camera. Given the right road & car, driving can be one of life's pleasures photography surely is another with the right subject & light. Kenneth Waller http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f - Original Message - From: "John Sessoms" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)? From: "frank theriault" On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 5:32 PM, Steve Desjardins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This? > > http://www.trekbikes.com/us/en/bikes/road/madone/madone69pro/ Nah, more like this: http://www.colnago.com/pistaENG.html $9,000 and it don't even come with pedals. If I had money, I wouldn't be driving at all. I'd have someone else behind the wheel, so I could have my hands free for the camera. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
The mere mention of Citroen makes my wallet shudder. Head gaskets, engine rebuilds, yuck. I guess if I had to choose I might go for a classic, a Mercedes 540K, but I have a connection, so it''s personal in some ways Paul On Nov 22, 2008, at 4:56 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: On Nov 22, 2008, at 9:43 AM, Joseph McAllister wrote: ... Me too an Aston Martin. ;-) You guys are pikers... 1937 Cord 812 Phaeton. Now you're talking! Loved that gearbox sound... But I settled for Porsches. :-) Either a Citroën CV11 or a Bugatti Atalanta Electron SC35 Coupé for classics. (hope I got the numbers and spelling right) But in all honesty, I like my Toyota Prius a lot and don't really want anything else at present. Leica lenses, on the other hand, I'm willing to pay lots extra for. G -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
Old 'Troons like the CV11 were simple, beautifully made and reliable. It's the complexity of the ID19 and later models that gave us all fits. Love 'Troons ... always wanted one but it never happened. One of my worst jobs as a mechanic was fitting a set of motor mounts in a DS21, however. G On Nov 22, 2008, at 4:28 PM, PN Stenquist wrote: The mere mention of Citroen makes my wallet shudder. Head gaskets, engine rebuilds, yuck. I guess if I had to choose I might go for a classic, a Mercedes 540K, but I have a connection, so it''s personal in some ways -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
2008/11/23 Scott Loveless <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On 11/22/08, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Nov 22, 2008, at 9:43 AM, Joseph McAllister wrote: >> > > >> > > > ... Me too an Aston Martin. ;-) >> > > > >> > > You guys are pikers... >> > > >> > > 1937 Cord 812 Phaeton. >> > > >> > >> > Now you're talking! >> > >> > Loved that gearbox sound... >> > >> > But I settled for Porsches. :-) >> > >> >> Either a Citroën CV11 or a Bugatti Atalanta Electron SC35 Coupé for >> classics. (hope I got the numbers and spelling right) > > Toyota 2000GT. But I'm not picky. Datsun 120Y -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 1:09 AM, David Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Datsun 120Y My very first car, in 1973, was a brand new Datsun 1200. Paid $2300 for it. I had enough cash left over(college student at the time) to buy rust proofing or a stereo. It rusted out in 4 1/4 years.:-) Dave > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. > -- Equine Photography www.caughtinmotion.com http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/ Ontario Canada -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
Yup, I am old enough to remember rust. In the "bad ole days" rust was common on car bodies. But, when was the last time you saw any recent car with ANY rust? Thankfully, they solved the rust problem for the most part today. JC O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David J Brooks Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2008 12:19 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)? On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 1:09 AM, David Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Datsun 120Y My very first car, in 1973, was a brand new Datsun 1200. Paid $2300 for it. I had enough cash left over(college student at the time) to buy rust proofing or a stereo. It rusted out in 4 1/4 years.:-) Dave > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > follow the directions. > -- Equine Photography www.caughtinmotion.com http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/ Ontario Canada -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
There is a similar thread on the Cosina-Voightlander mailing list. He wants to build a digital body with interchangeable lens mounts, with the auto exposure apparatus intact. It would give you the chance to use just about any old lens, regardless of brand on the same camera. See: http://cameraquest.org/mailman/listinfo/cvug "Discovering lenses BABA", by Douglas Sharp, November 13, 2008 Cheers Mike On Nov 19, 2008, at 11:39 AM, JC OConnell wrote: Man, I would die for a basic M42 DSLR at this point. All I would need on it was the M42 screw mount, basic stop down metering a shutter speed dial , a built in flash, and the little pad to activate the auto aperture M42 lens pin at moment of exposure. No need for AE or AF(obviously). Even 6-10Mp APS would be better than the nothing we have at this point. Anybody heard of any rumors of one yet? With the millions of great M42 lenses still out there in good working condition, it seems to me sooner or later somebody will step in and fill the need for this market. I know you can use M42 lenses (with manual modes on the lens) on Pentax and Canon DSLRS with adapters but the lack of auto aperture makes them way to cumbersome, and you cant use auto-only M42 lenses, hence the need for a true M42 mount DSLR. JC O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
David J Brooks wrote: On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 1:09 AM, David Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Datsun 120Y Imagine how fast it would have happened if you hadn't paid extra for the rust-proofing... My very first car, in 1973, was a brand new Datsun 1200. Paid $2300 for it. I had enough cash left over(college student at the time) to buy rust proofing or a stereo. It rusted out in 4 1/4 years.:-) Dave -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- You get further with a kind word and a gun, than with a kind word alone. --Al Capone. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
From: "Ken Waller" If I had money, I wouldn't be driving at all. I'd have someone else behind > the wheel, so I could have my hands free for the camera. Given the right road & car, driving can be one of life's pleasures photography surely is another with the right subject & light. Kenneth Waller http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f - Original Message - From: "John Sessoms" I have a 98 Mazda that's adequate transportation. I'd rather have a small station wagon like the Ford Focus, but I couldn't find one I could afford at the time I had to buy the Mazda, and now they've discontinued the Focus Wagon here in the U.S. For fun driving, I have an MGB in the basement awaiting the time and money for me to rebuild it again. It's not the MGB's failure this time. A few years ago, I had some work to do around the house and needed to park the MG out on the street for one night. Never had done that before. But, that was the night 4 high school students decided to go on a rampage smashing cars. Smashed in the windshield and side glasses. I was never able to adequately remove the broken glass from the interior, and have to strip it completely out and replace it. Parts are about $2500. Windshield and side glass is another $1500. In 3 hours, the 4 boys did more than $300,000 damage to over 100 cars. The court awarded me $1275 for parts and labor. The 4 boys got a years probation with a 10 pm curfew and so many exceptions as to be meaningless. They also had to write me a letter apologizing for vandalizing my car. Plus they all got their records expunged when they turned 18. And I don't know if it's worth getting the MG running again. All the "right roads" have been eaten up by urban sprawl; now 4 lanes with traffic signals every hundred feet or so, and strip mall after strip mall after strip mall after ... and what ain't is all walled and gated housing developments - half a million dollar house on 1/10 acre lot. They all have 45 mph speed limits, but you're lucky if you can get it out of second gear before you have to put the clutch in and start slowing down for the next signal. I did a themed photo last year for "Country Roads" and found out there are none where I live any more; had to drive 90 miles to get far enough away from the city to find a two lane road that would disappear around a curve. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
My first car, in 1966 was a 1957 Ford Fairlane 500 with a 312 V8. It was rusty, and ran very rough. I paid $50 for it. I got it to run well by relacing the distributor which had a worn bushing and wouldn't hold dwell. But it had bad steering parts and kind of dragged one front weel. Nevertheless, I got it up over 100 mph on the interstate. I used it to deliver pizzas for about a year before the left front steering knuckle fell off along with the wheel. Luckily, I was preared for that day, and I had a screwdriver, hammer and chisel in the trunk. So I unscrewed my license plate, chiseled the VIN tag off of the door post, left the car on the street,,and walked home. My next car was a 1957 Desota But that's another story. Paul -- Original message -- From: "David J Brooks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 1:09 AM, David Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Datsun 120Y > > My very first car, in 1973, was a brand new Datsun 1200. Paid $2300 > for it. I had enough cash left over(college student at the time) to > buy rust proofing or a stereo. > > It rusted out in 4 1/4 years.:-) > > Dave > > > > -- > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > PDML@pdml.net > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > > follow > the directions. > > > > > > -- > Equine Photography > www.caughtinmotion.com > http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/ > Ontario Canada > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
[...] > For fun driving, I have an MGB in the basement awaiting the time and > money for me to rebuild it again. It's not the MGB's failure > this time. > A few years ago, I had some work to do around the house and needed to > park the MG out on the street for one night. Never had done > that before. > > But, that was the night 4 high school students decided to go on a > rampage smashing cars. [...] > Insurance? > I did a themed photo last year for "Country Roads" and found > out there > are none where I live any more; had to drive 90 miles to get > far enough > away from the city to find a two lane road that would > disappear around a > curve. > I had an MG B Roadster for a few years, but ended up giving it away after it rotted from spending too much time parked outdoors. To bring it up to standard would have cost more than it would have been worth, and given the nature of the traffic and the weather around here it wasn't bringing in enough fun to be worth the extra. However, there is (or was) a thriving market over here for US MGs and similar cars, particularly Californian ones, because they tend to be in far better condition than ones that have been brought up over here. Might be worth your while to investigate. Bob -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 03:09:19PM +0900, David Savage wrote: > 2008/11/23 Scott Loveless <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > On 11/22/08, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On Nov 22, 2008, at 9:43 AM, Joseph McAllister wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > ... Me too an Aston Martin. ;-) > >> > > > > >> > > You guys are pikers... > >> > > > >> > > 1937 Cord 812 Phaeton. > >> > > > >> > > >> > Now you're talking! > >> > > >> > Loved that gearbox sound... > >> > > >> > But I settled for Porsches. :-) > >> > > >> > >> Either a Citro?n CV11 or a Bugatti Atalanta Electron SC35 Coup? for > >> classics. (hope I got the numbers and spelling right) > > > > Toyota 2000GT. But I'm not picky. > > Datsun 120Y Money no object? Probably a blower Bentley. Or a Lamborghini Miura. Practically - I'm happy with the Z4. Just as well, since as I only drive around 4000 miles a year I'm likely to be keeping this one for a while. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?]
Define "recent". Come to Wisconsin and I'll show you plenty of rusty cars... -p JC OConnell wrote: Yup, I am old enough to remember rust. In the "bad ole days" rust was common on car bodies. But, when was the last time you saw any recent car with ANY rust? Thankfully, they solved the rust problem for the most part today. JC O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David J Brooks Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2008 12:19 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)? On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 1:09 AM, David Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Datsun 120Y My very first car, in 1973, was a brand new Datsun 1200. Paid $2300 for it. I had enough cash left over(college student at the time) to buy rust proofing or a stereo. It rusted out in 4 1/4 years.:-) Dave -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
Great story, Paul. :-) Cheers, Christine - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2008 1:46 PM Subject: Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)? My first car, in 1966 was a 1957 Ford Fairlane 500 with a 312 V8. It was rusty, and ran very rough. I paid $50 for it. I got it to run well by relacing the distributor which had a worn bushing and wouldn't hold dwell. But it had bad steering parts and kind of dragged one front weel. Nevertheless, I got it up over 100 mph on the interstate. I used it to deliver pizzas for about a year before the left front steering knuckle fell off along with the wheel. Luckily, I was preared for that day, and I had a screwdriver, hammer and chisel in the trunk. So I unscrewed my license plate, chiseled the VIN tag off of the door post, left the car on the street,,and walked home. My next car was a 1957 Desota But that's another story. Paul -- Original message -- From: "David J Brooks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 1:09 AM, David Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Datsun 120Y My very first car, in 1973, was a brand new Datsun 1200. Paid $2300 for it. I had enough cash left over(college student at the time) to buy rust proofing or a stereo. It rusted out in 4 1/4 years.:-) Dave > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > follow the directions. > -- Equine Photography www.caughtinmotion.com http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/ Ontario Canada -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?]
I'm surprised to hear that. Here in Michigan, it's hard to find rust on a car built in the last ten years or so. The rust kings of recent history are probably the early eighties Hondas. The rust-out winners for the last half century would have to be the late fifties Chryser products. And of course all cars built before then rust indiscriminately and quickly. Paul -- Original message -- From: Paul Sorenson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Define "recent". Come to Wisconsin and I'll show you plenty of rusty > > cars... > > -p > > JC OConnell wrote: > > Yup, I am old enough to remember rust. In the "bad ole days" > > rust was common on car bodies. But, when was the last time > > you saw any recent car with ANY rust? Thankfully, they solved > > the rust problem for the most part today. > > > > JC O'Connell > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > > David J Brooks > > Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2008 12:19 PM > > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > Subject: Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)? > > > > > > On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 1:09 AM, David Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > >> Datsun 120Y > > > > My very first car, in 1973, was a brand new Datsun 1200. Paid $2300 for > > it. I had enough cash left over(college student at the time) to buy rust > > proofing or a stereo. > > > > It rusted out in 4 1/4 years.:-) > > > > Dave > >> -- > >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >> PDML@pdml.net > >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > > > >> follow the directions. > >> > > > > > > > > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
On Nov 23, 2008, at 12:18 , Bob W wrote: [...] I had an MG B Roadster for a few years, but ended up giving it away after it rotted from spending too much time parked outdoors. To bring it up to standard would have cost more than it would have been worth, and given the nature of the traffic and the weather around here it wasn't bringing in enough fun to be worth the extra. However, there is (or was) a thriving market over here for US MGs and similar cars, particularly Californian ones, because they tend to be in far better condition than ones that have been brought up over here. Might be worth your while to investigate. Bob We probably all had MGBs. I had a 64 from 66 until about 71, when I got a VW Camper. Kept the MG running after a rebuild and repaint following getting T-boned by a taxi in San Francisco in 68. Bought my wife Susan a 64 as well, and she got T-boned by a trolley! Never had that one fixed, just drove it for another 3 years. Did have to rebuild the trannies in both within a few weeks of each other. In a rented garage, dark, cold, and smelly. I'll never forget that chore. I do seem to think that buying identical cars for the better half saves on parts and troubleshooting. But it has done nothing to keep either marriage together...:-) I have photos taken with my Spotmatic if I ever find the negs. Joseph McAllister Lots of gear, not much time -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
Hmmm. To get t-boned by a trolley I think you have to be in the wrong place at the wrong time! :-) aul -- Original message -- From: Joseph McAllister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Nov 23, 2008, at 12:18 , Bob W wrote: > > > [...] > > > > I had an MG B Roadster for a few years, but ended up giving it away > > after it > > rotted from spending too much time parked outdoors. To bring it up to > > standard would have cost more than it would have been worth, and > > given the > > nature of the traffic and the weather around here it wasn't bringing > > in > > enough fun to be worth the extra. > > > > However, there is (or was) a thriving market over here for US MGs and > > similar cars, particularly Californian ones, because they tend to be > > in far > > better condition than ones that have been brought up over here. > > Might be > > worth your while to investigate. > > > > Bob > > > We probably all had MGBs. I had a 64 from 66 until about 71, when I > got a VW Camper. Kept the MG running after a rebuild and repaint > following getting T-boned by a taxi in San Francisco in 68. Bought my > wife Susan a 64 as well, and she got T-boned by a trolley! Never had > that one fixed, just drove it for another 3 years. Did have to rebuild > the trannies in both within a few weeks of each other. In a rented > garage, dark, cold, and smelly. I'll never forget that chore. > > I do seem to think that buying identical cars for the better half > saves on parts and troubleshooting. But it has done nothing to keep > either marriage together...:-) > > I have photos taken with my Spotmatic if I ever find the negs. > > Joseph McAllister > Lots of gear, not much time > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
That would be "Paul." The "P" key on my daughter's laptop apparently requires extra effort aul -- OriginaTTl message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Hmmm. To get t-boned by a trolley I think you have to be in the wrong place > at > the wrong time! :-) > aul > -- Original message -- > From: Joseph McAllister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > On Nov 23, 2008, at 12:18 , Bob W wrote: > > > > > [...] > > > > > > I had an MG B Roadster for a few years, but ended up giving it away > > > after it > > > rotted from spending too much time parked outdoors. To bring it up to > > > standard would have cost more than it would have been worth, and > > > given the > > > nature of the traffic and the weather around here it wasn't bringing > > > in > > > enough fun to be worth the extra. > > > > > > However, there is (or was) a thriving market over here for US MGs and > > > similar cars, particularly Californian ones, because they tend to be > > > in far > > > better condition than ones that have been brought up over here. > > > Might be > > > worth your while to investigate. > > > > > > Bob > > > > > > We probably all had MGBs. I had a 64 from 66 until about 71, when I > > got a VW Camper. Kept the MG running after a rebuild and repaint > > following getting T-boned by a taxi in San Francisco in 68. Bought my > > wife Susan a 64 as well, and she got T-boned by a trolley! Never had > > that one fixed, just drove it for another 3 years. Did have to rebuild > > the trannies in both within a few weeks of each other. In a rented > > garage, dark, cold, and smelly. I'll never forget that chore. > > > > I do seem to think that buying identical cars for the better half > > saves on parts and troubleshooting. But it has done nothing to keep > > either marriage together...:-) > > > > I have photos taken with my Spotmatic if I ever find the negs. > > > > Joseph McAllister > > Lots of gear, not much time > > > > > > > > -- > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > PDML@pdml.net > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > > follow > > the directions. > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
I'm not saying nuthin'. Joseph McAllister [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Nov 23, 2008, at 13:54 , [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hmmm. To get t-boned by a trolley I think you have to be in the wrong place at the wrong time! :-) aul -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?]
On Guam cars rust so bad and so quickly that we commonly called cars "biodegradable" :-) Walt On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 3:39 PM, Paul Sorenson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Define "recent". Come to Wisconsin and I'll show you plenty of rusty > > cars... -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
On 11/23/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That would be "Paul." The "P" key on my daughter's laptop apparently requires > extra effort > aul You have to give that P your aul. -- Scott Loveless New Cumberland, Pennsylvania, USA http://www.twosixteen.com/fivetoedsloth/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?]
I live in flordia, but even here cars use to rust out all the time in the 60's and 70's. I never see ANY rust any more in florida. Its "fixed" for all intents and purposes at least in this climate. JC O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Sorenson Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2008 3:39 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?] Define "recent". Come to Wisconsin and I'll show you plenty of rusty cars... -p JC OConnell wrote: > Yup, I am old enough to remember rust. In the "bad ole days" rust was > common on car bodies. But, when was the last time you saw any recent > car with ANY rust? Thankfully, they solved the rust problem for the > most part today. > > JC O'Connell > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of David J Brooks > Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2008 12:19 PM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)? > > > On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 1:09 AM, David Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > >> Datsun 120Y > > My very first car, in 1973, was a brand new Datsun 1200. Paid $2300 > for it. I had enough cash left over(college student at the time) to > buy rust proofing or a stereo. > > It rusted out in 4 1/4 years.:-) > > Dave >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML@pdml.net >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above >> and > >> follow the directions. >> > > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?]
The data shows that your observations are accurate on a nationa level. Paul -- Original message -- From: "JC OConnell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I live in flordia, but even here cars use to rust out all > the time in the 60's and 70's. I never see ANY rust any more > in florida. Its "fixed" for all intents and purposes at > least in this climate. > > JC O'Connell > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Paul Sorenson > Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2008 3:39 PM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?] > > > Define "recent". Come to Wisconsin and I'll show you plenty of rusty > > cars... > > -p > > JC OConnell wrote: > > Yup, I am old enough to remember rust. In the "bad ole days" rust was > > common on car bodies. But, when was the last time you saw any recent > > car with ANY rust? Thankfully, they solved the rust problem for the > > most part today. > > > > JC O'Connell > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > -----Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > > Of David J Brooks > > Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2008 12:19 PM > > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > Subject: Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)? > > > > > > On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 1:09 AM, David Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > >> Datsun 120Y > > > > My very first car, in 1973, was a brand new Datsun 1200. Paid $2300 > > for it. I had enough cash left over(college student at the time) to > > buy rust proofing or a stereo. > > > > It rusted out in 4 1/4 years.:-) > > > > Dave > >> -- > >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >> PDML@pdml.net > >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above > >> and > > > >> follow the directions. > >> > > > > > > > > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > follow the directions. > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
From: "Bob W" But, that was the night 4 high school students decided to go on a > rampage smashing cars. [...] > Insurance? Didn't pay a dime. > I did a themed photo last year for "Country Roads" and found > out there > are none where I live any more; had to drive 90 miles to get > far enough > away from the city to find a two lane road that would > disappear around a > curve. > I had an MG B Roadster for a few years, but ended up giving it away after it rotted from spending too much time parked outdoors. To bring it up to standard would have cost more than it would have been worth, and given the nature of the traffic and the weather around here it wasn't bringing in enough fun to be worth the extra. However, there is (or was) a thriving market over here for US MGs and similar cars, particularly Californian ones, because they tend to be in far better condition than ones that have been brought up over here. Might be worth your while to investigate. Bob I could do that if I wanted to sell it. I've had offers. It's not a California car, but it is a southern car, with the mild winters that implies and it doesn't have sill rot. But the reason it's in the basement is I hope to have money and time someday to get it back into running condition. I have delusions it might once again be the right car for the right road someday. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
